Best Movie of 2009:
The Hurt Locker
I'm always a sucker for a good action flick, but action flicks with this much depth, guts, emotion, and sheer storytelling bravura rarely get made. This is more than just "2009's war movie." This is a great story about 3 young men dealing with each other in the most hellish environment possible.
There were other really good movies this year, too:
Coraline
Stop-motion was in vogue this year in a big way. Both Henry Selick's stylish and scary adaptation of a Neil Gaiman story and Wes Anderson's Fantastic Mr. Fox (Also an adaptation) were visual successes, but where Anderson lost me with his idiosyncratic sense of humor, Selick hooked me with a gaudy and unique visual feast.
Up
Up did something very special for me. The first time I saw it, I had heard so much about the infamous opening 20 minutes that I readied myself for it and only felt some colorful flitting of emotion somewhere in the cold recesses of my dead heart. When I saw it again with my family, I knew what was coming and had a similar reaction. When I saw it again on Thanksgiving, my guard was down, and an unprecedented two tears were coaxed from my left eye. Must have been something in the turkey.
District 9
It's a neck-and-neck race between District 9 and Moon for my favorite sci-fi movie of the year. Neil Blomkamp's sci-fi-flavored apartheid fable has my love for its thematic content, blistering action, and two-steps-forward-one-step-back approach to race issues on film. The only failings for me are the jittery editing and uneven third act, but I can forgive those on the sheer strength of the rest of the film.
The Cove
Not only a great film, but an important film. Watching The Cove is akin to throwing that cardboard in the recycling bin instead of the the trash. It's not much, but it leaves you feeling like you donated your time to a worthy cause. Plus, it's just fun to watch, thanks to the whole "Ocean's Eleven meets The Bourne Identity" feel it has going on.
Ponyo
Miyazaki's latest animated adventure may not have blown me away like some of his other masterpieces, but there is so much inventive beauty packed into the charming tale that it's impossible to ignore.
Paranormal Activity
It seems the unqualified success of Oren Peli's low-fi ode to horrors of the night has prompted an enormous backlash, because no matter where I go online, all I read is how lame this movie supposedly is. Well, some felt the intense dread and some apparently didn't. I was one of the lucky few who did.
A Serious Man
The Coen Brothers always seem to be treated as if they're playing in their own sandbox. All their movies are so unique and so completely their own that it's tough to compare them to any other films released around them. Still, I'd say A Serious Man could hold its own against most every movie that came out this year.
Moon
Where District 9 faltered in its flashy, shaky direction, Moon wowed with its supremely assured presentation. While I wasn't bowled over by the somewhat unimaginative story (I kept waiting for some sort of twist to shake things up a bit), Sam Rockwell's powerful performance and Duncan Jones' marvelous direction more than made up for it.
(500) Days of Summer
A charming if somewhat annoyingly self-aware romantic comedy about love, and how it really isn't ever how we expect it to be. The humor ranges from cute to hilarious, and Joseph Gordon-Leavitt proves why he will win an Oscar one day (just watch).
Other fun movies came out, but they were either mediocre or overrated:
Star Trek
People won't like me for this, but Star Trek was good, but only good. Critics and audiences seemed to receive the J.J. Abrams reboot like it was Kirk's long-lost sex tape, but I had fun and not much beyond that.
Taken
Liam Neeson tearing up the very foundations of Paris in his search for his missing daughter sounds like a whole lot of fun, and it is, but the novelty wears off quick when you realize the movie doesn't have much more than that.
The Brothers Bloom
I really liked most of this goofy crime thriller, especially the great performances by the leads, but I have to admit the pacing and story were a little muddled and the whole thing went on a little too long.
Teminator: Salvation
I still say this one is underrated, but I can't deny that it still doesn't amount to a whole lot beyond some fun action and nostalgic moments.
Zombieland
Again, this is a fun movie, but it really got way too much praise from the zombie-crazed crowd when Shaun of the Dead did it so much better way back in 2004.
Avatar
Yes, the visuals are astounding, the effects are incredible, and the direction is solid. And yes, the film's critics often go a little too far in defending their dissent from the generally-positive norm. But let's be honest here; the story is so old and doesn't even try to be inventive, and the subtext says some troubling things about race issues.
There were also some huge disappointments:
Watchmen
It should have been so much better.
X-Men Origins: Wolverine
I am embarrassed for Hugh Jackman at this point. Come on, man, make any excuse you can and then jump ship!
Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen
And to think I defended the first film when the sequel revealed the true core of the franchise: dog sex and robot testicles.
9
How could a film that looks so good and has so much action be so boring? Ah, by having almost no story beyond "robot burlap people and the apocalypse."
Public Enemies
Michael Mann's take on John Dillinger was decent, but failed to justify its very existence.
The "Bizarro George Lucas" award for long-running series that somehow manages to avoid becoming awful:
Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince
Steady direction, artful cinematography, and elevated performances from the whole cast distracts us from the vacuum of a plot.
The "First Evil Dead Movie" award for films that made me feel like I missed the point:
Where the Wild Things Are
Fantastic Mr. Fox
Inglourious Basterds
All three of these films received huge amounts of praise, and I didn't really enjoy any of them. Okay, I did enjoy Fantastic Mr. Fox to some extent, and I loved Cristoph Waltz's performances in Inglourious Basterds, and there were parts of Where the Wild Things Are that I thought were well done, but I couldn't ever see where all the supposed brilliance of any of them lied. I just don't get it.
The "Face/Off" award for brainless fun if you're in the right mood:
G.I. Joe: The Rise of Cobra
2012
Drag Me To Hell
Of all of these, Sam Raimi's Drag Me to Hell was probably the most well done, but they all relied on a certain switch in most theater-goer's brains that shut down thought for 90 minutes or more. If you can ignore or embrace the inherent stupidity in any of these movies, you'll have as much fun as I did with them.
Other notable films of 2009:
Brüno
Not as good as Borat, but not as bad as some people made it out to be. Sure, it felt like a rehash, but some parts were nothing less than hernia-inducing hilarity.
The Princess and the Frog
Yes, I did gush all over it in my review, but most of that was due to my excitement at seeing traditional animation from Disney again. In the end it can't hold a candle to Up or Coraline.
Sherlock Holmes
Fun, but not in a completely brainless way. The writing and overall story were much better than I was anticipating, making the action scenes the only real dull parts of the film.
I didn't get around to watching a lot of movies that I wanted to see that I heard are also good:
Gomorrah
Bart Got a Room
Rudo Y Cursi
The Hangover
Food, Inc.
Whatever Works
It Might Get Loud
Big Fan
Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs
The Informant!
Bronson
Black Dynamite
The Messenger
Bad Lieutenant: Port of Call New Orleans
The Road
Up in the Air
Push: Based on the Novel Precious
Nine
An Education
A lot of critics and bloggers are doing "Best of Decade" lists like this one, but I've only been doing the "movie obsession" thing since like 2006. I really don't have a good enough handle on the best and worst of the decade to make that sort of list yet. But according to my flickchart account, my top twenty movies of the decade are:
1: The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King
2: Hot Fuzz
3: Unbreakable
4: The Dark Knight
5: The Incredibles
6: Master and Commander: The Far Side of the World
7: Spirited Away
8: Kiss Kiss, Bang Bang
9: Let the Right One In
10: Amélie
11: Once
12: Shaun of the Dead
13: Pan's Labyrinth
14: Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind
15: Casino Royale
16: American Psycho
17: The Hurt Locker
18: No Country for Old Men
19: The Wrestler
20: Memento
Aye, 'tis a fine list indeed.
Wednesday, December 30, 2009
Wednesday, December 23, 2009
Avatar (2009) Review
Released after a nearly decade-long incubation process in which its creator obsessively tinkered with its almost completely-computer-generated world and characters, sowed the seeds of failure with his "industry-changing" hyperbole, and drove a literal army of digital artists to the brink of insanity with his attention to minute detail, Avatar was nearly guaranteed to be a failure on the scale of the Hindenburg.
The reality of the finished film just goes to show; you never, ever bet against a mad genius like James Cameron.
Avatar is set in a possible future in the year 2154. Humanity is fully engaged in scouring the stars for resources, and focus their sites on Pandora, a harsh jungle hell with a toxic atmosphere and nightmarish creatures only H.P. Lovecraft could love. Paraplegic marine Jake Sully (Sam Worthington) is transferred to this life-ending getaway to take the place of his recently-killed twin brother in an experimental attempt to win over the native Na'vi species. Jake remotely "drives" a Na'vi avatar, or genetically-manipulated clone, in order to gain the trust of the primitive, hostile race of ten foot tall blue cat people.
Things take a turn for the predictable when Jake falls in love with the creatures and their oneness with Pandora's deadly nature. Tension between the scientific arm of humanity's operation on Pandora, headed by Dr. Grace Augustine (Sigourney Weaver), and the corporate/military complex, led by the trigger-happy Colonel Quaritch (Stephen Lang), reach a breaking point, and armed conflict becomes inevitable. Which side will Jake end up fighting for?
If you genuinely don't know the answer to that question, then you obviously haven't seen many movies. Yes, Avatar's story borrows liberally from many different sources and doesn't necessarily add anything new to the mix. The science fiction trappings and technological devices never really raise any serious questions that cinema hasn't already explored thoroughly. This is essentially the same critique of colonialism that we've seen dozens of times before with a familiar helping of white-guilt fable thrown into the mix, but it's a story that doesn't demand a lot of attention away from the game-changing visuals.
Yes, I said game-changing. James Cameron has always been known to be riding the wave of special effects innovation; he put creature effects to shame with Aliens, he revolutionized the use of CGI in The Abyss, and took a giant step further into that pool with Terminator 2; and Avatar is certainly nothing near an exception. The fully-realized world of Pandora is nothing short of breath-taking to watch unfold. Bio-luminescent plants, trees, and flowers light the night scenes with their gentle glow. The branches, leaves, and shoots all carry realistic weight when impeding a desperate foot chase. Enormous floating rocks teem with vicious winged creatures. Lovers of spectacle and pretty lights alike will gaze in ecstasy at the beauty James Cameron has lovingly crafted. It must be stated: If you plan on seeing Avatar, do yourself a big favor and see it in 3-D.
With all the unique locations Jake Sully and his blue cat friends visit on Pandora, one place they rarely go is the uncanny valley. Having been utterly unconvinced by purely digital creations in any films prior to this (save Gollum from the Lord of the Rings trilogy), I am happy to report that Avatar represents the first true advance in realistic CGI human animation on film. The facial animations, eye movements, and interactions between the digital Na'vi creatures is completely convincing, allowing us to completely accept these beings as real creatures of worth to the story. Only on a few occasions did the Na'vi hold their arms stiffly or produce robotic movements. Of all the accomplishments Avatar makes in the name of James Cameron, I am most in awe of the giant leap forward for realistic CGI animation. And when the eye-friendly action really shifts into high gear at the climax of the film, it's a good thing we have Cameron's steady and assured hand on the camera, rather than the jittery Bourne influence.
It's a shame, then, when such an otherwise-well-crafted film harbors other seemingly neglected components. On top of a rehashed story we have a lazy script, which contains plot devices like "unobtainium." I must have been the only one in the theater to break out into chuckles when I heard that one, delivered with the straightest of faces by Giovanni Ribisi. Compared to the other films in his portfolio, Avatar has no real quotable lines. "I see you" and "You're not in Kansas anymore" certainly will never hold a place alongside other Cameron classics like "Game over, man!" and "I'll be back."
The cast of Avatar is refreshingly strong, with Sam Worthington and Zoe Saldana bouncing back from unmemorable roles to deliver much better performances. Stephen Lang as the villainous Col. Quaritch is perhaps Avatar's most memorable character. His complete disregard for his own safety when savagely pursuing a target is truly something to behold. The supporting cast all do well in their own right, but unfortunately play underdeveloped characters that we never have any reason to care about.
Despite a few minor complaints about originality and the general studio-processed feeling that it sometimes produces, no one can argue that Avatar is a very good film from a legitimate cinematic talent. Unlike other technologically-obsessed filmmakers his age, James Cameron continues to prove that he has the patience to craft lovely character moments, push the art of film-making forward, and . . . well, actually direct a film, rather than paint it. In any other director's hands, Avatar would have been nothing more than a extended tech demo, alá Beowulf or the Star Wars prequels. Cameron's Avatar is an fully entertaining celebration of spectacle, and one ride worth taking, if only to briefly glimpse what the future holds.
Rating:
7.5 out of 10
The reality of the finished film just goes to show; you never, ever bet against a mad genius like James Cameron.
Avatar is set in a possible future in the year 2154. Humanity is fully engaged in scouring the stars for resources, and focus their sites on Pandora, a harsh jungle hell with a toxic atmosphere and nightmarish creatures only H.P. Lovecraft could love. Paraplegic marine Jake Sully (Sam Worthington) is transferred to this life-ending getaway to take the place of his recently-killed twin brother in an experimental attempt to win over the native Na'vi species. Jake remotely "drives" a Na'vi avatar, or genetically-manipulated clone, in order to gain the trust of the primitive, hostile race of ten foot tall blue cat people.
Things take a turn for the predictable when Jake falls in love with the creatures and their oneness with Pandora's deadly nature. Tension between the scientific arm of humanity's operation on Pandora, headed by Dr. Grace Augustine (Sigourney Weaver), and the corporate/military complex, led by the trigger-happy Colonel Quaritch (Stephen Lang), reach a breaking point, and armed conflict becomes inevitable. Which side will Jake end up fighting for?
If you genuinely don't know the answer to that question, then you obviously haven't seen many movies. Yes, Avatar's story borrows liberally from many different sources and doesn't necessarily add anything new to the mix. The science fiction trappings and technological devices never really raise any serious questions that cinema hasn't already explored thoroughly. This is essentially the same critique of colonialism that we've seen dozens of times before with a familiar helping of white-guilt fable thrown into the mix, but it's a story that doesn't demand a lot of attention away from the game-changing visuals.
Yes, I said game-changing. James Cameron has always been known to be riding the wave of special effects innovation; he put creature effects to shame with Aliens, he revolutionized the use of CGI in The Abyss, and took a giant step further into that pool with Terminator 2; and Avatar is certainly nothing near an exception. The fully-realized world of Pandora is nothing short of breath-taking to watch unfold. Bio-luminescent plants, trees, and flowers light the night scenes with their gentle glow. The branches, leaves, and shoots all carry realistic weight when impeding a desperate foot chase. Enormous floating rocks teem with vicious winged creatures. Lovers of spectacle and pretty lights alike will gaze in ecstasy at the beauty James Cameron has lovingly crafted. It must be stated: If you plan on seeing Avatar, do yourself a big favor and see it in 3-D.
With all the unique locations Jake Sully and his blue cat friends visit on Pandora, one place they rarely go is the uncanny valley. Having been utterly unconvinced by purely digital creations in any films prior to this (save Gollum from the Lord of the Rings trilogy), I am happy to report that Avatar represents the first true advance in realistic CGI human animation on film. The facial animations, eye movements, and interactions between the digital Na'vi creatures is completely convincing, allowing us to completely accept these beings as real creatures of worth to the story. Only on a few occasions did the Na'vi hold their arms stiffly or produce robotic movements. Of all the accomplishments Avatar makes in the name of James Cameron, I am most in awe of the giant leap forward for realistic CGI animation. And when the eye-friendly action really shifts into high gear at the climax of the film, it's a good thing we have Cameron's steady and assured hand on the camera, rather than the jittery Bourne influence.
It's a shame, then, when such an otherwise-well-crafted film harbors other seemingly neglected components. On top of a rehashed story we have a lazy script, which contains plot devices like "unobtainium." I must have been the only one in the theater to break out into chuckles when I heard that one, delivered with the straightest of faces by Giovanni Ribisi. Compared to the other films in his portfolio, Avatar has no real quotable lines. "I see you" and "You're not in Kansas anymore" certainly will never hold a place alongside other Cameron classics like "Game over, man!" and "I'll be back."
The cast of Avatar is refreshingly strong, with Sam Worthington and Zoe Saldana bouncing back from unmemorable roles to deliver much better performances. Stephen Lang as the villainous Col. Quaritch is perhaps Avatar's most memorable character. His complete disregard for his own safety when savagely pursuing a target is truly something to behold. The supporting cast all do well in their own right, but unfortunately play underdeveloped characters that we never have any reason to care about.
Despite a few minor complaints about originality and the general studio-processed feeling that it sometimes produces, no one can argue that Avatar is a very good film from a legitimate cinematic talent. Unlike other technologically-obsessed filmmakers his age, James Cameron continues to prove that he has the patience to craft lovely character moments, push the art of film-making forward, and . . . well, actually direct a film, rather than paint it. In any other director's hands, Avatar would have been nothing more than a extended tech demo, alá Beowulf or the Star Wars prequels. Cameron's Avatar is an fully entertaining celebration of spectacle, and one ride worth taking, if only to briefly glimpse what the future holds.
Rating:
7.5 out of 10
Monday, December 7, 2009
Holy swoon . . .
So as part of my all-consuming movie fixation, I have a volunteer-ish job with a local radio station to do their movie reviews. Volunteer-ish in the sense that I don't get paid, but I get free tickets to early showings of upcoming movies as long as I write up a review for them. It's a good gig. I write movie reviews as a hobby already, so there's no reason I can't take it to the next level.
Well, another perk of the, erm, experience is that every once in a while I get to participate in interviews with various movie personalites.
Here's my sister and I posing with Dwayne "The Rock" Johnson following our interview in late 2007.
While these interviews were both cool in their own ways, my favorite, I think, happened just this morning. Over the weekend, I got to see Disney's new film, The Princess and the Frog. It was a fun, delightful return to the now-classic Disney animated films of the late 80s and early 90s with a jazzy new flavor. As part of the promotion for the film, I got to interview a couple of the animators from the film and had a blast doing it. Randy Haycock (supervising animator for the character Prince Naveen) and Bruce Smith (supervising animator for the villain Dr. Facilier) both brought their sketchpads to the interview and busted out a few quick character sketches while they answered our questions. I forgot to bring my camera this time, but instead I got a much cooler souvenir.
I think I may be in love . . .
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)