Troutblog

Thanks to Oscar publicity — two films that have languished with limited distribution finally made it out to local theatres this weekend for the prerequisite (“but yes — they’ve been nominated for oscars!”) rubbernecking.

Crazy Heart is the more accessible of the two — Wonderfully scripted, and nicely acted —  a film that allows plot to follow character rather than formula — resulting in an an authentic and touching story — even if its one we’ve seen before.

The film is reminiscent of last year’s “The Wrestler” by way of 2005′s “Walk the Line” but without the celebrity baggage of the latter.

Jeff Bridge’s brings his charm, and selfless, lived-in authenticity to this solid performance.  Both he and an unrecognizable Colin Farrell do a very credible job singing the great songs produced and written by T-Bone Burnett, Stephen Bruton, and Ryan Bingham.   I imagine Bridge’s will be the Oscar Favorite since self-destruction, alcoholism and singing country music gains more academy respect than subtler, closer-to-home performances like George Clooney in “Up in the Air.”  Such is the nature of horseracing — but Bridges is quite enjoyable here and its a more reserved and honest performance than  Joaquin Phoenix’s melodramatic turn.  This film also has very nice work from Maggie Gyllenhall — and how many films can quietly reserve Robert Duvall to show up in a quiet, supporting role 2/3rds into the movie? (And Duvall does a very authentic little vocal in the film as well!)

Why does a film like this linger without a major release? If the Academy Awards are good for nothing else — it provides the marketing edge it takes to bring small-budget films around.

While I’m on the subject of films that don’t get released outside the major markets — also had the opportunity to see the little heralded “An Education” this weekend. Carey Mulligan’s performance has been rightly praised, but not enough has been said about what a lovely, adult film this is with its sharp script by Nick Hornby.  Its a rare depiction of the 60s that doesn’t wallow in the ‘cuteness’ of the period — but instead looks honestly at the limits that existed for women back at the time. The film adroitly presents a heroine with the appropriate naivete’ for her time and age — but also makes her smart, sharp, and avoids presenting her as a victim. Great supporting performances all around in this film, with even the parts that could have descended into caricature showing surprising definition and depth. The film does a great job of keeping you inquisitive, nervous, and slightly on edge – without tipping its hand about where its headed.  The film has no ‘high concept’ at all — so marketers probably floundered at finding an angle to ‘pitch’ this film with.  Too bad — its an interesting ‘coming of age’ film, from a young women’s point of view for a change. Good stuff!

66 films rated and reviewed:

It’s been one of the busiest and most complicated years of my life — and it’s reflected in my annual movie list — a record low for me in terms of the quantity of movies seen. On the other hand, since I was more protective of my time, the overall quality of what I saw made for one of the best movie-going years — a lot of good flicks on these lists.

More than half of these were seen in my home theater, rather than in the noisy, disruptive cinema.  I went out to see movies this year usually because they were must-sees I couldn’t wait for –  or they demanded the big screen experience and sound.
(Why see Avatar at home when you can see it in Imax 3-D?)

So here they are:  From best to worst – the  films I’ve seen that were released in 2009  -  followed by the many 2008 flicks that I didn’t see till 2009 (many of which were among the best of last year’s movies — but largely unavailable to see until the early months of THIS year).

2009 New Releases:

THE BEST:

#1 **** The Hurt Locker – An unblinking and riveting depiction of the chaos and uncertainty in Iraq, circa 2004, as seen through the high-stakes military job of disarming a staggering array of improvised, high-powered explosive devices found in the war-torn streets, abandoned cars, and strapped to the bodies of suicidal and hapless Iraqis caught in the middle.

From the moment it starts, director Kathryn Bigelow, shooting with bold, documentary realism, captures the knife-like tension that accompanies every moment of being on the ravaged streets of a city where enemies can be anywhere and anyone. Each cell phone, camera, or passing child may be about to detonate a device that can end the lives of soldiers and bystanders alike. Minute-for-minute, these may be one of the tensest movies ever made.

The script is comprised of a series of high-stake encounters ticking down the days until Bravo Company, at least those who survive, can get rotated out of Iraq, and the adrenalized effect this has on the male psyche. The movie greatly benefits from avoiding a narrative structure and allowing the well-realized characters to emerge from their actions and deeds, rather than through traditional exposition.

The decision to use three non-stars as the central characters greatly raise the movie’s effectiveness and sense of reality. All three give terrific performances.

By avoiding politics and judgement, Bigelow lets the harsh facts and circumstances speak for themselves. This is a gripping portrait of evil that has no conscience, heroism that has no limits, and an astute snapshot of male behavior. One of the best films of the year.

#2 **** Up in the Air — Never got the chance to blog about this one — but this film had a terrific screen play with as much thematic content and ideas as any work of good theatre might have.  Plus all the visual snazz and snap that only a movie can provide. A wonderful screenplay rich in ideas — exploring the role that ‘work’ plays in our lives.

Wonderfully rich characters, and an amazing control of tone (so hard to do in any work of art). Beautifully poised between comedy and seriousness with never a hint of caricture.

I’m not sure that there’s a better film ‘star’ than George Clooney out there.  Between this and his great voice work in the Fantastic Mr. Fox, I’d give him this year’s “Best Actor” award (for cumulative work in a year).  It’s so heartening to see somehow who can so deftly jump from ‘commercial’ to ‘artistic’ and move from genre to genre so effortlessly.

This movie made me look deeply into my own life, and THINK throughout the film, and for days thereafter.

#3 **** Up – Just last week I was opining at the death of exposition and the general sorry state of what passes for a screenplay these days (see my less than thrilled reviews of Terminator Salvation and the hugely disappointing Monsters vs Aliens).  And then along comes Pixar to restore my faith in craft, character, storytelling, and well — filmmaking in general — talk about Salvation!

#14 *** Ponyo – 2nd in my three-movie weekend was this latest animated film from wildly respected Japanese writer, director, animator Hayao Miyazaki. Miyazaki’s films are clearly not for all tastes (the theatre was pretty much empty — unusual for a Disney-released film, and sad, given the blockbuster status of a heck of a lot of animated crap thrown out there each year — Yes, I’m talking about you Monsters vs Aliens, Ice Age 3, etc.)

But if you’re looking for something fresh and different, you will clearly see the unexpected in anything from this master story-teller. His animated films are in an entirely different world than anything seen from Dreamworks, Sony, Disney, or even those marvels at Pixar. They are unique unto themselves and should be seen by wider audiences. C’mon parents — you want your kids to grow up respecting diverse cultures, but you only take them to cookie-cutter commercial movies!

Is it the Japanese culture that’s so different? Is the sense of story-telling simply from another world and place?  I dunno. But these films have a ‘magic’ in them that’s hard to define. The animation is all hand-drawn, (a refreshing change from the unrelenting march to computer animation and higher and higher degrees of realism becoming the standard by which everything is judged).   It is simple, and yet filled with detail and imagination, with something unexpected and bewitching in every frame. The story-lines come from cultures and ideas that barely exist in media and literature anymore. Ponyo is fantastical, innocent, and trippy in a way that reminded me of the psychedelic 60s.

Best of all, Pixar genius John Lassiter lovingly oversaw the dubbing of this U.S. version. A terrific ensemble of actors voice the characters in a way where you never realize this is not the films original language.  The translations respect the tone and style I imagine was in the original.  And most happily, unlike most animated films these days, the actors do not call attention to themselves.  Without reading the credits, you’d never guess that the pivotal role of the mother is voiced by Tina Fey. All the actors surrender themselves to the film and character (rather than the other way aound as it is in today’s Hollywood star-driven animation).   [Again -- I'm not lumping the Pixar folks in.  They clearly get it!]

Ponyo is a fairy-tale to be sure. And one aimed at younger children. So not everyone will have the patience for this film. But anyone who loves animation and fairy-tales of old will find plenty to be enraptured with here. I found this very enjoyable and a refreshing change of pace.

#15 *** Inglourious Basterds – Before speaking of this movie — let’s talk for a minute about love, hate, and blondes.

Have you ever seen a hot blonde? Dressed haphazardly yet seductively, innocent yet knock-out gorgeous, a little flirtatious and dumb in that cute blonde way?  How do you feel about her?

She walks down the street and heads turn. Wow!  What a babe!  Look at those shiny surfaces. If the spotlight gets turned on her, the paparazzi can’t stop taking pictures.  The love/lust fantasy is immediate.

But what happens?  After the glare wears off, people look a little deeper. They question their original infatuation when they realize they are not the one who discovered her.  They notice her beautiful blonde hair has black roots. They notice her dumb blonde persona is sort of an act, she’s actually quite smart, and that she has an agenda. They feel used. Betrayed. This blonde, like the emperor, has no clothes. (Hold that image).

I point this out to try to explain the very polar reactions that this film has gotten by critics and the pubic. The intensity of the reaction has more to do with Tarantino himself than by his movie. There are those who adore his every bold cinematic flourish, yet more and more there are those who want to pull out that gorgeous blonde hair by its black roots. This polarized reaction is exactly what happens when idols fall off their perches and people feel a victim of bait and switch.

So speaking of bait and switch — let’s turn to “Inglorious Basterds.”  This movie has been sold in provocative trailers as sort of B-movie jewish vengeance porn. Baseball bats to the head, nazi scalps… they might have just named it “The Jews Strike Back!”   This film has attracted both Eli Roth’s horror movie fans and history buffs looking for World War II revisited.

Well guess what?  This movie is as much about jews and World War II as “Star Wars” was a movie about quasars and combat.  The betrayal or surprise viewers may experience with this movie (depending on what you want it to be) is that the actual movie is really none of the above.  While there are bits and pieces here that address each of those expectations, this movie is ultimately about …(and c’mon friends, we all  should have guessed this by now)…  Quentin Tarantino and his love affair with the movies.

To fully appreciate this film, you need an almost encyclopedic knowledge of its many influences, its winking references, the nods in its musical score, the B-movie flourishes! Even if you’re an average Joe cinema like myself, your subconscious picks up on its many borrowed and reconstructed tropes. It is far more about its sources, than its milieu and characters.

This is not a movie about jews getting retribution. Its not about history. Rather, this is a movie in which Tarantino wants to demonstrate, literally, the power of film.  The hero of this movie is cinema itself!

So.  Is this a great film?  Nope.
Is it a bad film?  Not really.
So why such strong reactions?   It all comes down to how you feel about that blonde. If you resent her for not being who she seems to be, slyly taking advantage of you, then you’re going to pick this film apart for its many flaws and indulgences. And it has them – let me name at least one:

Quentin is a gifted writer in need of a good editor. He doesn’t know when to stop. The opening scene of this movie uses that incredibly effective movie technique of banal, civil conversation, chuckle and banter masking the inevitable violence you know will erupt at any second. Edge of the seat suspense. Christopher Waltz is very, very good in this film as the charming and truly evil ‘jew hunter’ Col. Hands Landa.  His civility is terrifying in every scene.

But Tarantino uses this same technique over and over again in the movie, and it becomes less effective with each repeat.  It grinds the movie nearly to a halt in an interminably long scene in a basement cafe during the middle of the movie. Someone, anyone, please get the scissors and cut some of this!!!!

By the way, speaking of actors, let me just say that Brad Pitt has become the best character actor in the business. Loved him in “Burn After Reading” – Loved him again in this. I’ll be delighted when he stops doing ‘leading man’ roles and focuses on his amazing gift with comedy, style, and character.

But, lest my review get as over-long as this film — let me wrap up by saying how I feel about that blonde.

Some of you may resent her for not being exactly who she appears to be.  But I admire her caginess, and the fact she puts in the effort to do something with what she has. I’m going to appreciate her beauty and overlook her flaws, black roots and all. Despite getting restless with the middle-third of this picture, and closing my eyes on 5-10 minutes of rather graphic stuff sprinkled here and there, I admire a movie high-minded enough to try to be something other than Hollywood high concept.

This blonde may have no clothes, but I’m happy to look at her!

#16 *** Avatar — Oh boy!  I know I’m in trouble listing this ground-breaking film so low on my list for this year. But (yawn), I just couldn’t find myself less interested in its story.

Despite seeing it in the best possible screening circumstance — and I’ll admit it — I was dazzled by the visual splendor of this film from end to end — but I couldn’t have found myself less engaged in these 2-dimensional characters (even in Imax 3D!)

Yes — the computer animated characters looked more life-like than any aliens ever seen on the screen –  but I didn’t feel the actors behind these amazing creations brought them to life in ANY way.  They had the emotional complexity of 2nd graders.  I kept thinking — Gee — if this wasn’t set on another planet — and we just had the original actors doing this script in low-budget makeup — what an incredibly boring B-movie this would have turned out to be.  Fantastic Mr. Fox had old school stop-animation – but more LIFE in the performances, than Mr. Cameron’s zillion dollar technology was able to muster.  [Exception: Zoe Saldana, occasionally registered!  But even the usually reliable Signourney Weaver seemed to be phoning this one in.  And people were expecting this to be Sam Worthington’s breakout film.  Uh…… no!

There were scenes of these beings, staring at wonder at the glowing white fuzz balls that seemed to go on for hours…  and yes, they were beautiful to look at with the layers of three dimensional plant bridges and vines and fur and tails and on and on and on….     but ultimately, this was just a rather blithe retelling of how the white man came and stole it all from the Indians.  Hello Pocohantas!

Cameron has always been the BEST at melding visual effects wonder to terrific story-telling — but here I guess all the wonder just overcame him.  If he spent even 1% of the time he spent on imagining each creature’s every digital crease,  thinking instead about character, the emotional complexities of living an alternate ‘avatar’ life, the clash of realities, the difficulties in understanding cultures, bigotry, misunderstanding, the challenges of being on an alien world…. this could have been a masterpiece.

Despite my disappointment — I DO think however that this work will have amazing consequences on film-making forever more. It deserves every technical achievement award they’ve got. And OK that big robots vs flying birds vs monsters firefight in the last 30 minutes was pretty darn exciting.  Adrenaline 10 – thinking and feeling 0.

#17 ***  Julie and Julia –

Rounding out my trifecta of movie-going this weekend was Nora Ephron’s new romantic-comedy, “Julie and Julia”.  Romantic comedy you say?  Yup.  But I’ll get back to that.

Much has been made of Meryl Streep’s glorious performance as Julia Child here. Every ounce of those kudos is well-deserved. Meryl’s gift for accents and astute understanding of character allow her to fully embrace and inhabit the out-sized personality of that force of nature, Julia Childs.  The fact that this never feels like a mere imitation is a triumph in its own terms. It seems unavoidable that Streep has another oscar nomination coming – and I know it’s boring she keeps getting nominated, but hey, this performance absolutely deserves it. No question.

But I’ve also read reviews with headlines like “Loved Julia, Hated Julie” — which pronounced the other ‘half’ of the two simultaneous stories being told here as less engaging — claiming Julie is whining and self-absorbed, and saying they wished the whole movie had stayed with Julia.

Well, I beg to differ.

Amy Adams is complex and wonderful in the more difficult role of the two. Despite the breezy, fun charms of Julia’s story and character, this movie would have no heft without its more contemporary story lending perspective. Nora Ephron cleverly saw the parallels between the two Juli’s. Both stories are about a woman, very much of her respective generation, and how she is driven to define herself. And they both are very driven — Julia by her sheer joie de vivre and her desire to make cooking accessible to American women, and Julie by her 911-era sense of helplessness and inadequacy.  And while much has been made of the fact that this is a departure for Ephron who usually makes romantic comedies — this movie is very much about  love.  It isn’t about will-they-won’t-they get together.  It’s about the tougher side of romance –BEING together.  The soul of this movie lies in the relationship each of these women has with their husband — two lovely performances from Stanley Tucci and Chris Messina. (Where’s this guy been?  He’s charming!).

This is ultimately a movie about love. and the generosity of spirit love bestows upon you to support your partner’s toughest dreams.

#18  *** (500) Days of Summer – On the surface, this movie appears to be about the attraction between a bright and open-hearted young man (another rich and surprising performance by Joseph Gordon-Levitt), and a charming, though elusive girl (fetching and quirky Zooey Deschanel). But this movie isn’t really a “love story” — as the film’s narrator teasingly warns us in the beginning of this cleverly constructed indy charmer.

While the narrator never tells us this, what the film really has on its mind is time — those 500 days —  and by extension, any series of days spent in the wrong place — whether that’s a relationship, a job, or a state of mind. Time is the movie’s theme and also its architectural construct. The movie jumps freely back and forth among those 500 days, replacing traditional narrative beginning, middle, end with sharply edited snapshots of the feelings and happenstance that litter that year-and-about-a-half.

Each little scene is a marvel of efficiency. There is no more to each scene than whatever it takes to make a specific point or reflect an emotional state of mind. Some scenes have dialog. Some scenes are silent. Some are drawings. One is even a song and dance number. The film’s writers, Scott Neustadter and Michael Weber, and the director, Marc Webb, are focused very sharply on specific states of mind. It’s clear the film is personal to them. It is not set in the present, but in a specific, yet unstated, time period (late 90s? They still look at record albums and play video games).  It’s in a very specific place (the city of Los Angeles, lovingly portrayed).  And it has a sound-track lifted from 10-20 years before the film takes place, (a lot of 70s and 80s music that the characters, and by extension, the writer and director have “I grew up listening to this music” ties to.)  You’ll no longer be able to hear “You Make My Dreams Come True” by Hall and Oates without thinking of this film.

If I didn’t absolutely adore this film, it’s only because at times it was too clever for its own good – a little self-congratulatory in its joy at finding quirky ways of making its points. I’m going to go out on a limb and say I found this film too clever by an eighth.

But overall, I found it funny, engaging and refreshing to see a relationship portrayed the way so many relationships actually are. Life isn’t just about  great love stories and making all the best choices.  It’s about the time spent at things that don’t last — and the joy and uncertainty you experience before you finally come to that realization.

#19 *** Precious (based on the novel “push” by …..) -  pretentious over long contractual title notwithstanding — this film is likely to be the most hyped at Oscar Time.  Now I grant you, the performances are strong, but I found the directorial style a bit over-reaching.  Everything felt a little heavy-handed.  This is tough subject-matter, and a revealing portrait of the worst side of human character, but I’m not sure the film didn’t almost feel exploitive in a way. I’m glad I saw it, but I don’t think I’d care to watch it again. Unpleasant stuff.  And I’m not lifted to feel joyful because this one young woman rose above her surroundings and strove to make the best of her life. I’m all to aware that she has many many more obstacles to face.  What I’d like to know is more about the people who remain beaten down, and we get merely a hint of that in the one truly fascinating scene where the Mom tries to explain and rationalize her behavior.

COMPLETELY WATCHABLE:

#20 *** The Hangover — Nothing extraordinary here. But a fun comedy with sharply defined characters.  You know from early on that things are going to get worse and worse — and you can’t wait for it to happen.  Definitely good for a chuckle!

#21  *** The Taking of Pelham 1-2-3 - I remember being very keen on the nail-biting original of this film, with Robert Shaw as the ingenious, serious-minded criminal who takes over a New York City subway train and holds the passengers hostage for a million dollars and Walter Matthau as the ordinary but smart transit guy who happens to be on the radio when it happens. I haven’t seen it it since it it was released in 1974 (when it was called “The Taking of Pelham One Two Three” by the way) – so I can’t compare it side-by-side with Tony Scott’s remake 35 years later where the stakes go up to $10 million and the number of edits and camera tricks are at least that inflated, so let me just say this:

The new film ramps up the action, with lots of high-speed, state-of-the-art car crashes, whiplash editing, and appropriate updates to the story to bring it into the world of cell phones, Internet and attack media. This time John Travolta plays the somewhat more psychotic villain and Denzel Washington is the transit guy on the other end. The timing of the remake makes sense, given our terrorist-enhanced anxieties, and it still delivers plenty of edge-of-the-seat suspense — at least during its first hour, where things proceed mostly in real time. Where the movie, uh, derails, is in its final third where plausibility is chucked out the window and Denzel Washington moves from ordinary guy to extraordinary guy, abandons his character, starts using a gun, and races through NYC traffic and in front of trains. I don’t recall that Walter Matthau needed all that in the original which I’ll wager, sight unseen, is still the better film. Nonetheless — the remake is still good thrilling fun and will keep your pulse racing and your whips lashing if you park your suspension of disbelief at the door.

#22 *** Drag Me to Hell  - You know why all the critics are raving about this new horror flick from the wonderful Sam Raimi? Because they’ve been subjected to a decade of horror movies that are nothing more than torture porn or pointlessly grim adaptations of Japanese ghost stories. So imagine their relief when Sam takes a step back from his polished, blockbuster, big-budget Spider Man movies and returns to his clever, cult-horror roots and delivers a good, old-fashioned, creepy drive-in movie like the ones you used to take a girlfriend to so you could chuckle as she jumped, shrieked and clawed your arm!  (Not that you won’t be jumping too!)

And what could be more horrific than today’s banking and mortgage crisis?  Try — foreclosing on a crazy gypsy woman, who puts a curse on you and sends demonic powers to drag you to hell! Talk about an economic stimulus!

There is even a bit of heart and morality in the story reminding me of classic short stories like The Monkey’s Paw and other campfire scares.  You know bad things are going to happen. And that makes the quiet moments the scariest. And Allison Lohman does a great job of making you sympathize with her, understand her, and root for her as she desperately seeks to fight back.

While this lacked the gonzo craziness of Raimi’s Evil Dead trilogy (and I kept waiting for Bruce Campbell to make a cameo), there is still enough fun and excess to elicits shrieks, giggles, goosebumps, and make you jump clear out of your seat.

So am I giving this the many thumbs up all the other critics are?  Naw…. I think my expectations ran a bit too high.  But this was still a fun time in the movies — the first horror film I’ve seen in ages that filled me with the glee I remember from films like ReAnimator, Private Parts, Dawn of the Dead, and others from the heydey of American horror.   So I’ll withhold my thumbs for something a little more groundbreaking, but happily give this a juicy jar of eyeballs and a big, “you got me” grin like the one I was wearing when the credits rolled.

#23 *** Adventureland – At one level, this looks a bit like your typical teen / young adult romp — horny teens drinking, smoking weed, barfing and surviving a lousy summer job at the local amusement park.  But — despite the inclusion of all the above — there is actually a rather sweet, sensitive, coming-of-age drama with likeable and touching characters.  Set in the 80s, with a soundtrack to match, this has the authentic feel of a memoir.  Not a bad little picture, with far more depth than you’d expect from this sort of thing.

SOON TO BE FORGOTTEN

#24  *** Public Enemies – More than anything else, Public Enemies is about looking good. The camerawork is digital and full of rich shadow, Johnny Depp looks stylish and amazing (even his scar looks good!) The army of G-Men are impeccably dressed, and every period car is glistening and shiny black. Obviously the great depression was a time when everyone and everything looked their best. Never has so much marble been lovingly photographed. (For authenticity sake a few bums are occasionally found lounging in the corners of shots, but they are in best ‘bum’ clothing!) Seriously, it’s great seeing this many people in suits and fedoras. This is Period with a capital P. (For Pretty!)

It’s also as anesthetic as a museum. While I enjoyed watching the film with its wonderfully staged machine gun fights and bank heists — it all felt, well…. beautifully done. There was little chutzpah to it. The central love story was perfunctory and rote. The many gangsters and G-men in the story were largely indistinguishable from one another (other than Depp who as always, has charisma to burn, and Christian Bale who does an interesting job of channeling a bit of Robert Duvall to his usual intensity.)

When the film ended after two and a half hours, I felt pleasure at seeing all this attractively shot stuff, but I doubt I’ll remember anything about any of it by tomorrow.

OK. Here’s what I’ll remember. I’ve never seen closer, close-up photography than this. Every single pore of Johnny Depp’s and Marion Cotillard’s faces fill the screen in amazing detail. I’ve never spent so much time gazing deeply at skin details.

The script DOES brush with a few interesting ideas and themes — like the fact that Dillinger was unwilling to adapt to advances in technology (the FBI’s hi-tech bank of phone switching and recording gear is worth a chuckle when viewed from 2009 — oooh) and that Dillinger couldn’t embrace that you could make more money taking bets over the phone than you could by robbing banks. The crimes they are a changin’.

These reverberations to today could have made an interesting theme to build the movie around — but ultimately Mann seems more interested in the romance of crime, the devotion of true love, and making sure every hat, gun and eyebrow was exquisitely placed and photographed!

#31     **1/2 Transformers 2 – Revenge of the Fallen – Robots! Big robots! Teeny robots! Shiny cars! Monster Trucks! Fireballs! Super swirly camera moves! Hot babes! Thundering music! Cool dudes! Explosions! Tanks! Megan! Evil robots! Funny people! Machine guns! Motorcycles! Ass jokes! Slo-mo camera moves! Shia! Noble robots! Big moist lips! Ghetto robots! Jets! Fast talking! Army guys! Bitches! Billowing smoke! Thunderous music! Friggin cussing! Air craft carriers! Pyramids! Car crashes! Partyin’! Paris! Outerspace robots! Dog! Goofy robots! Mechanical clanks and whirs! A government stooge! Hit-in-the-head jokes! Hit-in-the ballsack jokes! Chases! Flying robots! Swimming robots! Blow torches! Jeeps! Big tires! Flying rubble! 2 hours 30 minutes!

2008 Movies seen in 2009 (24 films)

THE BEST OF THE LAST YEAR  (seen this year)

**** Frozen River – A remarkable first film by director/writer Courtney Hunt . Some truly fresh subject matter unmarred by melodrama — the film gives insight into the struggle of raising a family with little income and little prospects. The film also gives interesting insight into the relationship of the Mohawk tribe with the outside world.  What impressed me about the film was how quietly suspenseful it was — the fragility of the world for those living on the edge of the economy. The film’s metaphors of a river of ice that could crack and collapse at any time, and the son’s desire to ‘build something out of nothing’ are present, and yet surprisingly subtle — as if the filmmaker actually respects the intelligence of her audience. Wonderful performances by Melissa Leo (nominated for a best actress oscar here, happily and remarkably), and a touching, unaffected performance by Charlie McDermott. A lovely and quietly disturbing little film.  Recommended!

**** The Wrestler – I found myself deeply moved by the poignancy of this portrait of aging and self-reevaluation. It’s also a meditation on loss of celebrity and success and how many people are unable to move on to a new chapter in their lives — the “one-trick ponies” of Springsteen’s closing song.  Mickey Rourke gives a raw, endearing and heartfelt performance, deftly avoiding self-pity. Marisa Tomei, continuing her departure from mainstream movies, gives another brave and fearless performance, her character providing a counterpoint in the challenges of moving on. I confess I’m tired of jerky, handheld cameras being used as a device to provide authenticity, and there are a few clunking lines in the script — but overall, the refreshing honesty of the backstage glimpses of guys trying to eke out a living in this often saddening vocation and the respect and camaraderie shown within their ranks, was very touching.

**** Tell No One – This smart, complex French Thriller (“Ne le dis à personne”) was released in France in 2006, but did not get even a limited release in the U.S. until 2008. No wonder.  It’s complicated. Difficult. Fascinating. And it makes you think. Recommended for those who like things Hitchcockian and aren’t afraid to read French subtitles. You’ve really got to watch to keep up with the many characters and complex web of lies and relationships that surround  the mysterious murder of a man’s wife eight years ago that resurface when new murders reopen the police investigation. Some terrific little action sequences that benefit greatly from their human scale. I cringed and jumped more at this man crossing the French Beltway in traffic than from any fireball or atomic explosion I’ve seen in films in ages. And a truly scary female baddy that you don’t want to meet in a dark alley!

**** Wendy and Lucy – With documentary-like simplicity, Wendy and Lucy paints a quiet portrait of being without resources in America.  Anyone who has ever owned a dog will be deeply touched by the bond between Lucy and Wendy.

The film is admirable in its honesty and lack of judgement. We do not know why Wendy has made the choices that bring her to where she is — only the impact that comes from being so close to the edge. Poignant and heart-rending to watch.

**** Happy Go Lucky – Mike Leigh is not so-much interested in plot (he doesn’t actually use a script in the traditional sense) as he is in character — so it’s no surprise that Poppy, (played with wonderful charm and depth by Sally Hawkins), is a character quite unlike what we’re used to seeing in movies. Open, accessible, vulnerable, prankish, impish and yet filled with compassion, she’s the “Happy Go Lucky” of the film’s title — and yet the film raises the bigger question of why there is so much anger and unhappiness in the world. This is not a film for the impatient — but its one with indelible moments that make it quite worthwhile. Don’t let the struggle to get used to the British dialects in the first 20 minutes or so put you off — this is a lovely little film.

*** The Reader – My personal predilection to keep the atrocities of the holocaust at an emotional distance undoubtedly colors my response to this film. But I have never found guilt, recrimination and secrets withheld as dramatically engaging. Despite Kate Winslett’s brave and selfless performance  – these British actresses can be so refreshing in their willingness to appear on screen without vanity —  I found this oscar-bait long and occasionally tedious. The sexuality on display was raw and honest, but its hard to muster up enthusiasm for characters with such constricted and unpleasant lives. Yes, there are a few interesting twists and turns, but was glad to leave these unfortunate individuals behind when I left the theatre.

*** Changeling – The fact that this is based on true events renders this far more interesting than it would be as just a piece of fiction.  Purely as a story, this tale of police corruption, a serial killer and its effect on a woman at a transitional time for women in society feels somewhat heavy-handed. This isn’t helped by the humorless, melodramatic approach taken by Eastwood in the direction of the film.  An entire hospital full of  of souless doctors and nurses?  A bit of a stretch that makes One Flew Over the Cuckoos Nest seem even-handed.

** 1/2   Blocking “The Path to 9/11″ – Anatomy of a Smear. This documentary had a very limited release, or possibly no commercial release at all.  It’s listed at IMDB but without a release date. I saw it on DVD.  What is IS, is a rather well-made documentary about the controversy surrounding the ABC docudrama “The Path to 9/11″  and the clear acts of censorship of scenes within that show as a result of political pressure, and Disney’s week-kneed or politically motivated refusal to release it on DVD.  It illustrates the increasingly strong arm that politicians exert in controlling what is shown on television and the sorry state of journalism in the U.S.  So much of the controversy around the show was stirred up by people who had never bothered to see it.

MOVIES I CORRECTLY AVOIDED SEEING IN THE THEATER LAST YEAR

** Role Models – A tolerable comedy. But fairly disposable. I expect more from Paul Rudd who is usually more interesting than in this one he had a hand in producing.

** Death Race – A lot of talent is wasted in this unnecessary remake / reimagining of the far superior (and far more fun), Death Race 2000.

** Get Smart – Neither necessary nor terribly rewarding. But Anne Hathaway is quite the sex-kitten and Steve Carrell is never dull.  A lot of good actors treading water in a lightly entertaining action picture with comedy — but not too much of it.

** Quantum of Solace – Is a bitter Bond really a better Bond?  OK — I’m the first to admit more reality needed to be injected into this franchise — but somehow they’ve managed to squeeze all the fun out of my favorite spy.  This Bourne-again Bond feel tired already, despite his recent reinvigoration and reinvention in Casino Royale.

** Kung Fu Panda — A reasonable kids picture I guess… but Dreamworks can’t seem to muster up the story-telling savvy of Pixar.  Some good animation, and a cute idea, but was hard to muster much enthusiasm over this.  The trend in animation these days seems to be towards all-star casting of celebrity voices — and I’m not convinced it really serves these movies as well as they should.  I was constantly aware that I was hearing Jack Black and Dustin Hoffman, and therefore the animated characters themselves never come to true life. Had Jack Black been the voice of Bucks Bunny for example — would bugs be the indelible character he is?  I doubt anyone will really remember this Panda as a living breathing character the way we think of even a minor character like Foghorn Leghorn (far less well animated — and yet a true character because we don’t see the actor behind the animated mask.)

** Religulous - There’s some cheap and easy laughs in Bill Moyer’s pseudo-documentary about his fears and concerns about religion — but this will not convert or appeal to anyone not already on his side of the argument.

This is closer to Borat than to Michael Moore, and calling it a documentary instead of a comedy is a stretch. Moyer goes for easy targets that support his point about the downsides to religion. He has no interest in really examining the topic by looking at both sides.  I guess ‘documentary’ is the new vehicle for comedians who want to make movies but can’t act.

* Valkyrie – Tom Cruise apparently couldn’t muster a german accent so all the Germans in this over-serious and trying-to-be-noble film speak with English dialects (except Tom Cruise who still sounds American).  He also is the only soldier who still has a contemporary haircut.  Is Tom Cruise simply unwilling to abandon himself to a part anymore?

* Pineapple Express – All the goodwill that Judd Apatow’s comedies have earned in the last couple of years are squandered here in this overlong, mess of a stoner-comedy. Directed with no sense of style or restraint, the actors seem to be riffing endlessly and aimlessly. You’ll definitely need to light one up to find much to enjoy here, unless you find endless f-words the soul of humor. Even the slapstick is badly executed.

Movies from earlier years seen during 2009  (6)

These are a few movies seen either for the first time during this year…. or not previously listed in the lists I’ve been keeping since 1993, or newly reexamined after many years.

**** Beyond the Mat (1999) – Ever since seeing “The Wrestler” earlier this year I’d been reminded that I always wanted to see this documentary about the ‘real-life’ wrestling business. Featuring a bevy of wrestling super-stars and wanna-bees — some of this is staggeringly heartbreaking and terrifying. If you want to really understand the wrestling ‘business’ and the toll it can take on a person physically and emotionally, this is a great watch. Watching the faces of the children of wreestler “Mankind” while The Rock beats their Dad near to death with a chair was as staggering an emotional moment as I saw in a film this year.

***The Thomas Crown Affair (1999) – Jody picked this one for our monthly ‘movie night’.  She preferred the remake to the original Steve McQueen / Faye Dunaway version which she felt was very dated, very 60s.  Estelle expressed a preference for the original.  I’ve not seen the original, but I thought this ‘caper film’ held up pretty well and was an enjoyable flick.  I have a lot more respect for Pierce Brosnan ever since I saw him in the Matador and so was happy to see his work here again. And frankly, I thought he and Rene Russo had some real strong sexual chemistry in this pic.  It’s nice seeing sexual attraction on film by people over 40.  I also like movies about smart people and worthy adversaries.  Yes, the ending is a bit contrived  and one twist too many — but the picture is fun and mostly smart.  Good popcorn pic. Worth a rental if you haven’t seen it.

***Grey Gardens (1975)- the documentary that started a number of sequels including a Broadway Musical, a cult following, and an HBO remake.  Very odd, and strangely folksy in the Maisle brothers home-movie approach to documentary film-making.  Ahh the strange humans on this planet — these two ladies are pips!

***Eye of the Needle (1981) – The first half of this spy thriller hasn’t aged very well, but the not-so-interesting war-time first hour sets the stage for a second-act that is a terrific little suspense drama in the Wait Until Dark mode of relentless killer vs plucky heroine. Once the action moves away from the war and onto Thunder Island, this has some genuine chilling thrills. What out for that axe!

***Target Earth (1954) When I was a kid, this movie scared me to death when I first saw it on TV.  I’ve had nightmarish recollections of these giant robots and their strange side-by-side locomotion and death-rays ever since. But for the life of me, I had no idea what movie there terrifying creatures were in.

That is, until recently, when a good friend unearthed Target Earth for me, now available on DVD.

How did it hold up?  Actually, a surprisingly decent B-movie very reminiscent of Twilight Zone episodes. A few people wake up to find themselves in a deserted city, unsure of what has happened. They slowly discover the city has been evacuated by the military due to an invasion by an army of indestructible robot invaders who systematically are destroying humans with a death-ray shot out through their ‘cathode-ray tube” face.  The military scientists work feverishly to find the achilles heel in these deadly invaders!

And the robots that gave me nightmares and made me hide under the covers?  Oh oh.  One guy in a sad robot suit that looks like it was made out of vacuum cleaner hoses!  They only had the budget to build one robot suit (from whom we must extrapolate the invading hordes) — and the one robot only appears in 3 short scenes.

Nonetheless — if you’re looking for some B-movie laughs, and reasonable performances from a cast and director taking this all dead seriously — This is not a bad little film.  Just hopelessly dated and low-tech.  I enjoyed it just the same — and I was finally able to look the robot right in his death-ray eyes without hiding under a blanket as I did when I was 6 years old!

Full disclosure:  Michael Wadleigh’s “Woodstock” documentary is one of my favorite films, so I ventured into this Ang Lee movie primed with low expectations from less-than-enthusiastic reviews I’d skimmed, prepared to defend the superiority of my beloved original.  Ang Lee clearly has affection and regard for the documentary too, since he lovingly cribs from its split-screen style from time to time here, and the characters of the documentary filmmakers appear in the margins of his own film. We’re aware of both films at once!

But I found myself surprised and delighted by this film that, once again, wasn’t about what its marketers made it out to be. This isn’t a celebration or a recreation of arguably the most influential concert event in history. Rather, Woodstock provides the background and converging circumstance for a more traditional ‘coming of age’ story:  Young man ‘takes stock” of his life and makes the decision to move forward and escape his past.  That young man, Jake, is played quite honestly and winningly by relative unknown, Henry Goodman. And, it turns out the basis for this film is true, adapted from the memoir of Elliot Tiber.

There are many of these coming of age stories, and many better than this, but what really struck me about this film was how knowing it was about the role culture has in shaping our lives — and as films about culture go, this is one of the best I’ve seen in a while.

Yesterday I was noting that the alleged jewish revenge film “Inglourious Basterds” had little or nothing to do with jews.  Imagine my surprise today to see such an honest and deep portrait of jewish culture turning up in a movie about Woodstock!

I did not even recognize Imelda Staunton, so thoroughly did she embody Henry’s jewish immigrant mother in this film. Both she and Demetri Martin who plays her husband are terrific, revealing much of the tenacity and flaws present in Russian Jews.

Until seeing this film, I was unaware of the connection between the dying gasps of the catskills and the opportunity that ultimately presented for the organizers of Woodstock. The script’s first hour was its best, showing life in a dying small town, Bethel NY, and its resistance to what was both feared and turned out to be a cultural invasion. Eugene Levy is wonderful and schtick-free in his portrayal of the open-minded, optimistic and opportunistic Max Yasgur. Jeffrey Dean Morgan and others were very effective in representing the town’s values and concerns.

The cultural convergence of this event places the small town folk and the pragmatic jewish immigrants on a collision course with both big-city business (the money people behind the event), and the sunny, eternally optimistic Michael Lang (a dead-ringer embodiment by musical theatre star Jonathan Groff). And then the cultural invasion begins in earnest.

The flower power generation is neither deified nor condemned. Ang Lee shows both the child-like appeal that comes from their uncomplicated idealism, and how experimentation with drugs and ‘free love’ could appear so appealing, yet he doesn’t back down from showing the naivete and self-centeredness that was much a part of it.

The other culture playing a role here is the emerging gay lifestyle, as Henry awakens to his own sexuality, which he has kept hidden from his parents. Ang Lee reaches a bit too far however, trying to fill things out with a number of other archetypes. The “disheartened Vietnam vet” played by Emile Hirsch seemed a bit thinly drawn. I also wasn’t sure they weren’t just making fun of the experimental theatre troupe living in the barn — though believe me, I’ve known those folks. And yes, there’s a warm-hearted transexual too — though I found his character rather affecting. The film does tend to sprawl — but I think it needed to in order to embrace the scale of all the  forces that were converging. (How does a small-budget film get this many extras?  We’re talking serious crowd scenes once we get to the concert weekend itself!)

Whether one does or does not enjoy this film is probably subject to the level with which you can identify with one culture or another presented here, and your capacity for nostalgia of a lifestyle mostly gone extinct. (By that I mean the hippies — not the jews or the gays ).

For me, this film awakened understanding of the impact of my own jewish culture — as well as spole to me as a professional event organizer. The impact and organization of a large-scale enterprise is a culture and beast all unto itself.

Before I saw this film, one of my volunteers from the Los Angeles Times Festival of Books, which I help organize each year asked me “How can they make a movie about Woodstock that isn’t about the music?” — I shared his concern and went to the movie expecting the worst.  But after viewing it, I came away pleased and satisfied and with the obvious answer. There was much more going on at Woodstock than just the music and jams on the stage at the bottom of the meadow. Many people there never even saw or heard the music! (In 14 years of organizing the Festival of Books, I’ve not seen one single author panel myself! Way too much going on!!!)

The infrastructure and impact of the event itself was far larger than its music, and other, more individualized events of personal significance were taking place all around it. So for me, this “little” film (with its cast of thousands) is a welcome companion piece and an appetizer to the original documentary and its music — which I plan on enjoying again later this week!

Before speaking of this movie — let’s talk for a minute about love, hate, and blondes.

Have you ever seen a hot blonde? Dressed haphazardly yet seductively, innocent yet knock-out gorgeous, a little flirtatious and dumb in that cute blonde way?  How do you feel about her?

She walks down the street and heads turn. Wow!  What a babe!  Look at those shiny surfaces. If the spotlight gets turned on her, the paparazzi can’t stop taking pictures.  The love/lust fantasy is immediate.

But what happens?  After the glare wears off, people look a little deeper. They question their original infatuation when they realize they are not the one who discovered her.  They notice her beautiful blonde hair has black roots. They notice her dumb blonde persona is sort of an act, she’s actually quite smart, and that she has an agenda. They feel used. Betrayed. This blonde, like the emperor, has no clothes. (Hold that image).

I point this out to try to explain the very polar reactions that this film has gotten by critics and the public. The intensity of the reaction has more to do with Tarantino himself than by his movie. There are those who adore his every bold cinematic flourish, yet more and more there are those who want to pull out that gorgeous blonde hair by its black roots. This polarized reaction is exactly what happens when idols fall off their perches and people feel a victim of bait and switch.

So speaking of bait and switch — let’s turn to “Inglorious Basterds.”  This movie has been sold in provocative trailers as sort of B-movie jewish vengeance porn. Baseball bats to the head, nazi scalps… they might have just named it “The Jews Strike Back!”   This film has attracted both Eli Roth’s horror movie fans and history buffs looking for World War II revisited.

Well guess what?  This movie is as much about jews and World War II as “Star Wars” was a movie about quasars and combat.  The betrayal or surprise viewers may experience with this movie (depending on what you want it to be) is that the actual movie is really none of the above.  While there are bits and pieces here that address each of those expectations, this movie is ultimately about …(and c’mon friends, we all  should have guessed this by now)…  Quentin Tarantino and his love affair with the movies.

To fully appreciate this film, you need an almost encyclopedic knowledge of its many influences, its winking references, the nods in its musical score, the B-movie flourishes! Even if you’re an average Joe cinema like myself, your subconscious picks up on its many borrowed and reconstructed tropes. It is far more about its sources, than its milieu and characters.

This is not a movie about jews getting retribution. Its not about history. Rather, this is a movie in which Tarantino wants to demonstrate, literally, the power of film.  The hero of this movie is cinema itself!

So.  Is this a great film?  Nope.
Is it a bad film?  Not really.
So why such strong reactions?   It all comes down to how you feel about that blonde. If you resent her for not being who she seems to be, slyly taking advantage of you, then you’re going to pick this film apart for its many flaws and indulgences. And it has them – let me name at least one:

Quentin is a gifted writer in need of a good editor. He doesn’t know when to stop. The opening scene of this movie uses that incredibly effective movie technique of banal, civil conversation, chuckle and banter masking the inevitable violence you know will erupt at any second. Edge of the seat suspense. Christopher Waltz is very, very good in this film as the charming and truly evil ‘jew hunter’ Col. Hands Landa.  His civility is terrifying in every scene.

But Tarantino uses this same technique over and over again in the movie, and it becomes less effective with each repeat.  It grinds the movie nearly to a halt in an interminably long scene in a basement cafe during the middle of the movie. Someone, anyone, please get the scissors and cut some of this!!!!

By the way, speaking of actors, let me just say that Brad Pitt has become the best character actor in the business. Loved him in “Burn After Reading” – Loved him again in this. I’ll be delighted when he stops doing ‘leading man’ roles and focuses on his amazing gift with comedy, style, and character.

But, lest my review get as over-long as this film — let me wrap up by saying how I feel about that blonde.

Some of you may resent her for not being exactly who she appears to be.  But I admire her caginess, and the fact she puts in the effort to do something with what she has. I’m going to appreciate her beauty and overlook her flaws, black roots and all. Despite getting restless with the middle-third of this picture, and closing my eyes on 5-10 minutes of rather graphic stuff sprinkled here and there, I admire a movie high-minded enough to try to be something other than Hollywood high concept.

This blonde may have no clothes, but I’m happy to look at her!

Rounding out my trifecta of movie-going this weekend was Nora Ephron’s new romantic-comedy, “Julie and Julia”.  Romantic comedy you say?  Yup.  But I’ll get back to that.

Much has been made of Meryl Streep’s glorious performance as Julia Child here. Every ounce of those kudos is well-deserved. Meryl’s gift for accents and astute understanding of character allow her to fully embrace and inhabit the out-sized personality of that force of nature, Julia Childs.  The fact that this never feels like a mere imitation is a triumph in its own terms. It seems unavoidable that Streep has another oscar nomination coming – and I know it’s boring she keeps getting nominated, but hey, this performance absolutely deserves it. No question.

But I’ve also read reviews with headlines like “Loved Julia, Hated Julie” — which pronounced the other ‘half’ of the two simultaneous stories being told here as less engaging — claiming Julie is whining and self-absorbed, and saying they wished the whole movie had stayed with Julia.

Well, I beg to differ.

Amy Adams is complex and wonderful in the more difficult role of the two. Despite the breezy, fun charms of Julia’s story and character, this movie would have no heft without its more contemporary story lending perspective. Nora Ephron cleverly saw the parallels between the two Juli’s. Both stories are about a woman, very much of her respective generation, and how she is driven to define herself. And they both are very driven — Julia by her sheer joie de vivre and her desire to make cooking accessible to American women, and Julie by her 911-era sense of helplessness and inadequacy.  And while much has been made of the fact that this is a departure for Ephron who usually makes romantic comedies — this movie is very much about  love.  It isn’t about will-they-won’t-they get together.  It’s about the tougher side of romance –BEING together.  The soul of this movie lies in the relationship each of these women has with their husband — two lovely performances from Stanley Tucci and Chris Messina. (Where’s this guy been?  He’s charming!).

This is ultimately a movie about love. and the generosity of spirit love bestows upon you to support your partner’s toughest dreams.

2nd in my three-movie weekend was this latest animated film from wildly respected Japanese writer, director, animator Hayao Miyazaki. Miyazaki’s films are clearly not for all tastes (the theatre was pretty much empty — unusual for a Disney-released film, and sad, given the blockbuster status of a heck of a lot of animated crap thrown out there each year — Yes, I’m talking about you Monsters vs Aliens, Ice Age 3, etc.)

But if you’re looking for something fresh and different, you will clearly see the unexpected in anything from this master story-teller. His animated films are in an entirely different world than anything seen from Dreamworks, Sony, Disney, or even those marvels at Pixar. They are unique unto themselves and should be seen by wider audiences. C’mon parents — you want your kids to grow up respecting diverse cultures, but you only take them to cookie-cutter commercial movies!

Is it the Japanese culture that’s so different? Is the sense of story-telling simply from another world and place?  I dunno. But these films have a ‘magic’ in them that’s hard to define. The animation is all hand-drawn, (a refreshing change from the unrelenting march to computer animation and higher and higher degrees of realism becoming the standard by which everything is judged).   It is simple, and yet filled with detail and imagination, with something unexpected and bewitching in every frame. The story-lines come from cultures and ideas that barely exist in media and literature anymore. Ponyo is fantastical, innocent, and trippy in a way that reminded me of the psychedelic 60s.

Best of all, Pixar genius John Lassiter lovingly oversaw the dubbing of this U.S. version. A terrific ensemble of actors voice the characters in a way where you never realize this is not the films original language.  The translations respect the tone and style I imagine was in the original.  And most happily, unlike most animated films these days, the actors do not call attention to themselves.  Without reading the credits, you’d never guess that the pivotal role of the mother is voiced by Tina Fey. All the actors surrender themselves to the film and character (rather than the other way aound as it is in today’s Hollywood star-driven animation).   [Again -- I'm not lumping the Pixar folks in.  They clearly get it!]

Ponyo is a fairy-tale to be sure. And one aimed at younger children. So not everyone will have the patience for this film. But anyone who loves animation and fairy-tales of old will find plenty to be enraptured with here. I found this very enjoyable and a refreshing change of pace.

Three movies in one weekend. A rare indulgence in my busy schedule. And not a clunker in the bunch.

Without a doubt, District 9 is the smartest action picture of the year. It’s a fast-paced,thriller that successfully melds classic sci-fi, a dollop of timely social commentary, bullet-pounding shoot ‘em ups, and grafts all this onto the suspense plot-line from “The Fugitive”. Its effects and cinematography are very effective, and the best use yet of the current trend towards Documentary-style story-telling. If this was, in fact, a low-budget film, then every dollar was well-spent.  The documentary device is used here much more successfully than in last year’s Cloverfield. (Does Ricky Gervais get a royalty every time someone rips off “The Office” in using this device?)

All that said – I’m going to go out on a tangent here however and say I was a teensy bit surprised that this film turned out to be such an action-oriented picture.  The marketing had set my expectations for a return to the glory days when science fiction was the genre of ideas and social messages.

When did the science start leaving science-fiction? When did social commentary become the second-class citizen in movie-making? When exactly did the future become just become another setting for action pictures? (Joining war movies , police movies, spy movies, and car-chase movies?)

Was it Star Wars?  Alien? Terminator?  Once they made big bucks (unlike most sci-fi), did Hollywood just put a red-light on making sci-fi that paused for thought and reflection?

Don’t get me wrong — I love all three of the above, and I love a great action film, and make no mistake about it: District 9 is a great action film. It start out gloriously with a fresh and wonderful sense of social satire and a terrific mirror to society with a new way to look at the challenges of immigration and the problems of cultures co-existing. But before long it moves away from ‘idea’ science-fiction (the likes of classic films like 2001, The day the Earth Stood Still, Soylent Green, Forbidden Planet), and pours on the bullets and explosions.  Its more interesting themes move to the background and are replaced by traditional Hollywood one-dimensional themes like ‘corporations are evil’ and ‘the military is heartless.”

Have we become so restless as an audience that we can’t take ideas without the medicine of lots of stuff blowing up loudly? I would have considered this one of the best movies of the year had it stuck with its gutsy premise and explored that as deeply as possible – instead of spending so much of its latter-third so blatantly laying the groundwork for the inevitable sequel – District 10.

Rant finished.  This is a terrific film. Go see it!

On the surface, this movie appears to be about the attraction between a bright and open-hearted young man (another rich and surprising performance by Joseph Gordon-Levitt), and a charming, though elusive girl (fetching and quirky Zooey Deschanel). But this movie isn’t really a “love story” — as the film’s narrator teasingly warns us in the beginning of this cleverly constructed indy charmer.

While the narrator never tells us this, what the film really has on its mind is time — those 500 days —  and by extension, any series of days spent in the wrong place — whether that’s a relationship, a job, or a state of mind. Time is the movie’s theme and also its architectural construct. The movie jumps freely back and forth among those 500 days, replacing traditional narrative beginning, middle, end with sharply edited snapshots of the feelings and happenstance that litter that year-and-about-a-half.

Each little scene is a marvel of efficiency. There is no more to each scene than whatever it takes to make a specific point or reflect an emotional state of mind. Some scenes have dialog. Some scenes are silent. Some are drawings. One is even a song and dance number. The film’s writers, Scott Neustadter and Michael Weber, and the director, Marc Webb, are focused very sharply on specific states of mind. It’s clear the film is personal to them. It is not set in the present, but in a specific, yet unstated, time period (late 90s? They still look at record albums and play video games).  It’s in a very specific place (the city of Los Angeles, lovingly portrayed).  And it has a sound-track lifted from 10-20 years before the film takes place, (a lot of 70s and 80s music that the characters, and by extension, the writer and director have “I grew up listening to this music” ties to.)  You’ll no longer be able to hear “You Make My Dreams Come True” by Hall and Oates without thinking of this film.

If I didn’t absolutely adore this film, it’s only because at times it was too clever for its own good – a little self-congratulatory in its joy at finding quirky ways of making its points. I’m going to go out on a limb and say I found this film too clever by an eighth.

But overall, I found it funny, engaging and refreshing to see a relationship portrayed the way so many relationships actually are. Life isn’t just about  great love stories and making all the best choices.  It’s about the time spent at things that don’t last — and the joy and uncertainty you experience before you finally come to that realization.

An unblinking and riveting depiction of the chaos and uncertainty in Iraq, circa 2004, as seen through the high-stakes military job of disarming a staggering array of improvised, high-powered explosive devices found in the war-torn streets, abandoned cars, and strapped to the bodies of suicidal and hapless Iraqis caught in the middle.

From the moment it starts, director Kathryn Bigelow, shooting with bold, documentary realism, captures the knife-like tension that accompanies every moment of being on the ravaged streets of a city where enemies can be anywhere and anyone. Each cell phone, camera, or passing child may be about to detonate a device that can end the lives of soldiers and bystanders alike. Minute-for-minute, these may be one of the tensest movies ever made.

The script is comprised of a series of high-stake encounters ticking down the days until Bravo Company, at least those who survive, can get rotated out of Iraq, and the adrenalized effect this has on the male psyche. The movie greatly benefits from avoiding a narrative structure and allowing the well-realized characters to emerge from their actions and deeds, rather than through traditional exposition.

The decision to use three non-stars as the central characters greatly raise the movie’s effectiveness and sense of reality. All three give terrific performances.

By avoiding politics and judgement, Bigelow lets the harsh facts and circumstances speak for themselves. This is a gripping portrait of evil that has no conscience, heroism that has no limits, and an astute snapshot of male behavior. One of the best films of the year.

The most satisfying thing about the Harry Potter novels has been how they matured over time, along with its original readers. They went from being exciting tales for young readers, to increasingly sophisticated novels exploring the darkest parts of life and society.

The same progression has been true in the six films made so far. Astute casting (and smart contracting, no doubt) in year one has led to the same cast returning in film after film. And it has been rewarding to see the three young actors, playing the three lead characters, mature from cute-kid performers, into genuine actors. (It certainly hasn’t hurt that both Daniel Radcliffe and Emma Watson have become quite attractive as well. It serves the hormonal agenda of the latest movie nicely. And what better place for these young actors to have apprenticed their craft than working with the most-accomplished ensemble of British actors ever seen in one film series.)

Even more happily, the film-making has grown. The series left behind the more kid-friendly skills of Chris Columbus, and improved as both Alfonso Cuaron and Mike Newell took the reins for films three and four respectively. David Yates took the helm with the excellent “….Order of the Phoenix” and he returns here showing a sure and able hand at bringing the best out of the cast (Helena Bonham Carter is absolutely dead-on as a dangerous lunatic,), while bringing the most textured tone to the series to date.

Without abandoning the fun of the earlier movies, he has been unafraid to embrace the darkness and scariness inherent in this dark and magical world, and this film certainly will give younger children potential nightmares.

Though its no surprise, the special effects have improved as well, and this film has cinematography and atmosphere that rivals the most serious of sci-fi / fantasy films.

But the real star of this film, lest it not be said, is the wonderful gravity and depth of Michael Gambon’s assured, low-key performance as Dumbledore. It’s unlikely that Richard Harris, who played the role until his death in 2002, could have brought this much dimension and humanity to the role. Performances like this are easily overlooked (hidden as they are within a franchise mostly lauded for its special effects), but it is a marvelous performance.

I look forward to the last two films, but particularly to the time when the eight movies can be viewed as one, large experience. Rare is the franchise that improves with each outing. This is one of them!