11 BEST FILMS OF THE YEAR

A few months ago, I was ready to write off 2009 as one of film's leaner years. I was then swept away by a number of movies that hit me on an intense personal level. This year, more than anything else, film was a revealing reflection of ourselves. It tapped into our fears and desires, our current state of social and economic unrest. Films had real weight and context. "Where the Wild Things Are" wasn't a playful childhood fantasy, but a painfully real depiction of youth. "The Road" wasn't a simple popcorn spectacle, but a haunting vision of the future. These were just a few of the many great films this year.

Now, before some of you start bitching, I haven't seen "Avatar" yet. If it ends up cracking my Top 10, I will revise this list. I just couldn't wait any longer to post this.

Without further ado, I present the Top 10...

1. A Serious Man- Watching this movie was like staring into the abyss and being confronted by my deepest fears. Being a Coen Brothers film, it made me laugh at the same time. Its tale of Larry Gopnik, a man suddenly hit with marital, professional, and moral dilemmas, perfectly captures the frustrating absurdity of life. The film doesn't explain life's madness. It simply, refreshingly, forces you to watch it unfold.

This movie came along at an eerily perfect time in my life, a time in which I was experiencing much stress and hardship. Impending adulthood was beginning to weigh on me. At a time when I kept questioning what was happening to me and those around me, this film taught me to "accept the mystery." It's a difficult, scary lesson, but one well worth learning for all of us.

2. Where the Wild Things Are- If "A Serious Man" mirrors my adulthood, "Where the Wild Things Are" is a reflection of my childhood. I WAS the main character, Max, when I was little: always playing, content to be alone in my world of fantasy and wonder. This film gets everything right about that time in our lives: the desperate longing for play time after school, the magical creatures that are real in your heart, but not in the real world, the loneliness inflicted by the increasingly adult world around you. It's at once beautiful, hopeful, and heartbreaking. This film presents a world you will want to get lost in--a dreamy forest not unlike the forts and tree houses you built in your backyard. It's organic, it's familiar. This is not a cold, lifeless spectacle. It will hit you close to home. Months after seeing it, I'm still floating in its melancholy wonder.

3. The Road- Why did people not talk more about this film when it is such a starkly beautiful, suspenseful, near-masterpiece? Why did no one send crazy fan letters to Viggo Mortensen, praising his deeply-felt performance as a father protecting his son through the apocalypse? Why did no one mention how surprisingly fun this film is, how it is sometimes reminscent of "The Road Warrior" and vintage John Carpenter? For me, this film was the biggest surprise of the year. In lesser hands, it could've been a Michael Bay-esque spectacle. In other words, it could've been like its trailer. In John Hillcoat's hands, it's at once low-key and exciting, and altogether great.

4. Up in the Air

A rare specimen: a film that is at once relevant, timely and timeless. Timely in its depiction of current social and economic unrest, timeless in its portrayal of one man's quest for romance and more importantly, redemption. George Clooney's performance and Jason Reitman's sharp writing and direction make corporate downsizer Ryan Bingham a new classic film character. This movie, like so many others this year, shows how film can be a revealing reflection of the times and ourselves.

5. Funny People- This film is profound in revealing the pain that is masked by the humor of our everyday lives. Most indelible is the scene in which dying comedian, George Burns (Adam Sandler) sees his new doctor. Instead of engulfing George in dread, director Judd Apatow and Sandler have him disregard his doom and poke fun at his doctor's thick German accent. That is a moment of great truth because that is what any of us would do. Like George, we would use humor as a refuge. This film is full of moments like this. It's a comedy that is far more than funny.

6. The Hurt Locker- One of the most brazenly realistic depictions of war in recent memory. In this Iraq War tale, you can feel the heat, taste the desert air. The most interesting part of this film, though, is Jeremy Renner's character, bomb defusal unit leader, Will James. He is the antithesis of a typical screen soldier. Instead of dreading conflict and longing for home, he throws himself into harm's way with almost giddy exuberance.

7. Bruno- To label this movie a biting satire on American intolerance is to shortchange it. Aside from sociopoltical commentary, it's about movie magic, specifically the visceral thrill of watching filmmakers take enormous risks for their art. When Sacha Baron Cohen as Bruno exposes politician Ron Paul's aggressive homophobia by stripping naked in front of him, you will be strangely inspired. It is one of the most punk, inspiringly provocative acts I have ever seen--right up there with the Vietnam protests. Much more so than Michael Moore or Oliver Stone, satirist Sacha Baron Cohen forces us to look at the darkest parts of ourselves. "Bruno" is a dizzying and cathartic comedic spectacle. The humor cuts deep, striking the mind as well as the heart.

8. Fantastic Mr. Fox- Fun, quirky, poignant, otherworldly and human at the same time. In other words, a Wes Anderson film. This movie left me with a smile on my face and a song in my heart. The animation took me back to my glorious childhood days of watching "Wallace & Gromit." What I liked most, though, was the way Mr. Fox fits so perfectly with Wes Anderson's other characters. Like "Bottle Rocket's" Dignan, "Rushmore's" Max Fischer, Royal Tenenbaum, he is a mischievous innocent. Like those characters, he has a childlike sense of wonder of which he cannot let go. Don't we all?

9. Star Trek- Audiences have become so accustomed to CGI wizardry that the magic of movies has been lost on them. "Star Trek" resensitizes audiences to the magic by infusing its spectacles with visceral excitement. The deeply felt performances from Chris Pine and Zachary Quinto elevate the material, turning what could be cheap thrills into harrowing moments. The visceral excitement also comes from the look of the film. J.J. Abrams, in filming outer space, takes on the point of view of an unsuspecting and excited outsider. There is clumsiness to the camerawork that mirrors the same natural, distracted quality any normal person would have when filming something so foreign and awe-inspiring. Like a child, the camera's eye is always wide and glistening.

10. The Informant- It's not the acts of espionage in "The Informant!" that are funny, but the bland, unromantic places in which they occur. When you see "Springfield, IL" pop up urgently in bold, demanding letters across the screen, your first instinct is to laugh. In that sense, director Steven Soderbergh has succeeded. His goal is to deromanticize the corporate thriller genre with a comic spirit, revealing how bureaucratic and "uncool" (for lack of a better term) the business of spying can be. He aims to show you that corporate corruption and espionage are very real and occuring all around you, not only in the exotic locales of James Bond films, but in shabby offices across your city. On top of that, Matt Damon, as real-life corporate whistleblower Mark Whitacre, gives possibly the best and most entertaining performance of his career here.

11. Inglourious Basterds- This might not be Quentin Tarantino's masterpiece, but it is certainly his most tense and suspenseful film. The first scene alone is one of Hitchcockian power. This World War II revenge story is counterprogramming to gritty, harrowing war films like "Saving Private Ryan" and "The Thin Red Line." It plays with history, it pokes fun at the absurdity of war, it pays homage to other films. There is a sometimes off-putting, cold, experimental quality to it, but this film's strengths outweigh its weaknesses.

Honorable Mentions: Moon, An Education, Pirate Radio, Taking Woodstock, Shrink

A Serious Mongolian

With its skyscraping mountains reaching up from dry, cracked desert, Mongolia is inherently cinematic. Surprisingly, its films are not. From what I have seen, they are small, intimate stories--not the sweeping epics I was expecting given Mongolia’s breathtaking landscape. The landscape plays a large part in underscoring the characters’ feelings of hopelessness and isolation. In this big world, their spirits can soar or become completely lost.

In the case of "Tuya’s Marriage," the main character’s spirits have difficulty taking flight…as they should. Tuya, a woman struggling to provide for her family as a sheep herder, is in quite the dilemma. Her husband is disabled and she has to find another one to help her take care of him. Her suitors, of course, want nothing to do with him. These circumstances are sympathetic despite being bizarre. Kudos to director Quanan Wang for challenging the audience in the end. The ending of "Tuya's Marriage" reminded me of the conclusion of the Coen Brothers' "A Serious Man" in its refreshing refusal to give easy answers or provide a tidy resolution. Like "A Serious Man"'s Larry Gopnik, life never seems to go right for Tuya and by the end, there is very little hope that it ever will.

I must admit that I was not nearly as affected by the ending of "Tuya’s Marriage" as I was by "A Serious Man" however. Maybe that’s because when I saw this bleak Mongolian film, I was snug at home, allowing pleasant thoughts to easily dance through my head. When the lights in the theater came up after "A Serious Man," no one spoke or moved. They were too shaken from staring into the abyss; being confronted with ambiguity and their worst fears. The movie theater allows for that kind of powerful illusion, aesthetic distance as it is called.

Therefore, I recommend that you see "Tuya’s Marriage" at the IMA’s Toby Theater Friday, Dec. 10 at 7 p.m. Don’t get the DVD. Spend the $9 on a more hypnotic, powerful experience.

How "A Serious Man" Changed My Worldview

This movie came along at an eerily perfect time in my life. In a nutshell, it's about bad things happening to good people and the punishing tests life presents. I've gotten to know these tests all too well this year. My dad was diagnosed with cancer, his week-long recovery from surgery turned into 9 months, my dog died--the list goes on. I'm not asking for pity, though. Things are getting better--much better. My dad is now home and continuing to improve every day. We've bonded more than ever before. Things seem to be looking up, but, as "A Serious Man" shows, this good fortune could stop right now and we could all be swept away by a tornado. There is no telling what life will bring or why.

The film's tale of Larry Gopnik, a man suddenly hit with marital, professional, and moral dilemmas, has taught me a valuable and liberating lesson: It's pointless to dwell on your misfortunes because more often than not, there may be no real reason behind them whatsoever. Everyone is vulnerable to them, even good people. There is no reasoning with the Devil before he works his deeds on you.

If you spend your whole life questioning what happens to you, you are not living to the fullest, you are not progressing forward. As a character in the film states, you sometimes have to "accept the mystery" and just go on living.

"A Serious Man" also points out that happiness is not a long term thing. It comes for the characters in small doses: listening to Jefferson Airplane in school, watching a few minutes of "F-Troop" before the TV gets fuzzy, seeing a son's barmitzfah. Those small moments shouldn't be taken for granted.

Many Coen Brothers' films share these sentiments. "The Big Lebowski" in particular is about embracing life and warding off negativity as much as possible. "You can't be worried about that shit, man. Life goes on," the laidback, fun-loving Jeff "The Dude" Lebowski says.

In short, as cliched as it may sound, life is precious, it is meant to be savored. In fact, punishment may ensue if it is not. When "A Serious Man" came to a close, I was completely shaken by these thoughts. Panic pulsed through me--I wanted to get out, leave my worries behind and start embracing life as quickly as possible. Although the film's ending is not a happy one, it is incredibly satisfying--refreshing in its refusal to give easy answers and provide tidy resolutions. The film does not explain life's madness. It simply, refreshingly, forces you to watch it unfold. It's real, not the stuff of utopian Hollywood fantasy. The audience didn't move or speak when the film was over. When the lights came up, they just sat there, still shaken from staring into the abyss, being confronted by ambiguity and their worst fears.

"A Serious Man" provides a cathartic experience. It sent me out into the night awake, alert, and strong. This film forced me to confront my deepest fears and by the end, made me feel like I had conquered them.

The Informant!

It's not the acts of espionage in "The Informant!" that are funny, but the bland, unromantic places in which they occur. When you see "Springfield, IL" pop up urgently in bold, demanding letters across the screen, your first instinct is to laugh. In that sense, director Steven Soderbergh has succeeded. His goal is to deromanticize the corporate thriller genre with a comic spirit, revealing how bureaucratic and "uncool" (for lack of a better term) the business of spying can be. He aims to show you that corporate corruption and espionage are very real and occuring all around you, not only in the exotic locales of James Bond films, but in shabby offices across your city.

Matt Damon, in a career-high performance, stars as Mark Whitacre, the real-life whistleblower behind ADM's lysine price-fixing scandal of the 90s. In the film, Whitacre is a bit of a child: wide-eyed, extremely sensitive, self-absorbed. However, Damon and Soderbergh do not simply mock him. They give him virtually the same treatment Oliver Stone gave George W. Bush in his biopic, "W." That is, they only gently poke fun, showing genuine affection for him beneath their humorous jabs. In their hands, Whitacre is never unlikable. This is due in large part to the endearing innocence Damon brings to the character. Late in the film, when FBI agent Brian Shepard (Scott Bakula) asks Whitacre why he keeps lying, you truly believe Damon when he simply, sadly says in his mind, "I don't know."It's an intimate, poignant moment. This is not a throwaway comedy like some critics are calling it. There is truth and raw emotion behind the humor.

Many other scenes of this film are still swimming around in my head. I'm still in awe of the acting as well. Not only from Damon, but Bakula, Joel McHale, Tom Papa, and Tony Hale to name a few. The casting is simply perfect. Everyone fits their role so naturally and convincingly. I couldn't imagine any other actors playing these parts.

This film is not Oscar bait. It's not a searing legal thriller in the vein of "Michael Clayton" or "The Insider." It's not a slick depiction of sharks in suits. That's why I love it, though.

QUESTION

Does anyone read this blog? Just curious. I want to make sure that I am not just ranting to myself with these entries.

Quick Reviews

I'm trying to catch up, so here are some capsule reviews of the latest films...

"9"- A post-apocalyptic tale chronicling the adventures of a group of small, burlap sock puppet robots. This film is very original yet familiar, evoking H.G. Wells, tin-pot Isaac Asimov, and Max Fleischer's 1940s Superman cartoons. Like its main characters, 9 is stitched out of old scraps yet emerges as something unlike anything you've seen before.

"Inglourious Basterds"- It might not be his masterpiece, but this is definitely Quentin Tarantino's tensest film. He proves himself as a master of suspense with the first chapter alone, "Once Upon a Time in Nazi-Occupied Frace." The ominous high-pitched strings on the soundtrack, the quiet tension between the characters, the overwhelming sense of dread. It is a scene of Hitchcockian power. Few of the following scenes are quite as effective, but the film is engrossing nonetheless. Brad Pitt, Diane Kruger, Melanie Laurent, and especially Christoph Waltz deliver very charismatic, complex performances in this exuberant World War II epic.

"Taking Woodstock"- This is not a sweeping historical drama about the revolutionary 1969 concert that united the nation. That does not mean the film is bad, though. Far from it. Its meandering, minimalist style is refreshingly subversive. It also charms with a quiet, subtle performance from Demetri Martin as the unlikely helm of the legendary concert, Eliot Tiber.
The film succeeds as a quiet journey through a loud and turbulent era.

"Shrink"- A refreshingly sympathetic satire of Hollywood and the eccentric souls that keep it alive. Kevin Spacey stars as a Tinseltown psychiatrist struggling to help himself and his patients. Screenwriter Thomas Moffett and director Jonas Pate never simply mock these characters. This is evident in an indelible scene wherein two actors (played by Jack Huston and Robin Williams) ramble inappropriately during a press junket. Underneath the humor of this moment, we see their exhaustion, their struggle to remain enthusiastic about a career that never allows them to be their true selves. Thankfully, the rest of the film is just like this scene: intimately poignant.

Exciting Update

I have some exciting news-- I've started writing for NUVO Magazine and I couldn't be happier. I'll be writing movie reviews and various news stories about new films and I am thrilled. I normally don't like to pat myself on the back, but I am so excited about this, I just had to share it. Here are my first two NUVO articles...

'Shrink': New film, old school marketing (http://www.nuvo.net/entertainment/article/shrink-new-film-old-school-marketing)

You could tell in his voice that he was nervous. Nervous for his film. Nervous about the crowds at the Keystone Art Cinema awaiting him with questions. Perhaps most of all, screenwriter Thomas Moffett was nervous this past Friday and Saturday night during the Q and A for his new film, Shrink because, despite attracting an impressive cast, he is not a big-ticket filmmaker. Not yet, anyway.

A mere few years ago, he was just another Indiana kid, raised in West Lafayette, who dreamed of being a storyteller. He shows incredible promise with Shrink. But the film needs help getting seen.

You’d think Academy Award winning actors Kevin Spacey and Robin Williams would make it an easy sell. Being an independent film, however, Shrink cannot afford an advertising campaign and the filmmakers are therefore relying on word of mouth. They shouldn’t have to worry for long. Shrink is bound to provoke plenty of discussion.

Spacey stars as a Hollywood psychiatrist struggling to help his patients while coping with his own problems. The deft, vivid portrait of Tinseltown and the intimacy the film has with its show biz characters is surprising considering screenwriter Moffett is not from Hollywood. Then again, the characters’ conflicts often transcend Hollywood issues. Moffett explained that this was his intention. He said, “I'm not a Hollywood insider by any means. I live in New York. I just wanted to write a film about people with problems. Hollywood magnifies their problems because everything is under more scrutiny there, but my goal was to create characters that the audience would connect with. I think that with some adjustments, you could put the characters in any town.” Moffett has achieved his goal. The key strength of the film is its universally appealing characters. Spacey’s performance is particularly compelling.

Moffett agrees that Spacey’s performance is powerful and will attract people to the film. He elaborated, “There is a vulnerability and an intimacy to his performance which is incredibly moving for me to watch, not only as the writer, but as a member of the audience.”

Shrink is a great little film [see review on page 28]. It just needs a push. As Moffett explained, money is and always will be the biggest obstacle in independent filmmaking and Shrink simply cannot afford a marketing campaign. It’s currently playing at the Keystone Art Cinema. So, as Moffett stressed at the end of his Q and A, “tell your friends, tell your family, tell everyone you know to see it.”

'Shrink' will continue its run at Landmark Theatres in the Fashion Mall: http://www.landmarktheatres.com/.

"Shrink" Quick Review...

NUVO Rates it: 4 out of 5 stars

Shrink is a refreshingly sympathetic satire of Hollywood and the eccentric souls that keep it alive. Kevin Spacey stars as a Tinseltown psychiatrist struggling to help himself and his patients. Screenwriter Thomas Moffett and director Jonas Pate never mock these characters. This is evident in an indelible scene wherein two actors (played by Jack Huston and Robin Williams) ramble inappropriately during a press junket. Underneath the humor of this moment, we see their exhaustion, their struggle to remain enthusiastic about a career that never allows them to be their true selves. Thankfully, the rest of the film is just like this scene: intimately poignant. 106 minutes. http://www.nuvo.net/entertainment/article/quick-movie-review-shrink

A Look Back at the Best Film of 2008

"Politics do not define a human being. There's more to people than how they vote." Who would've ever thought that these words would be uttered in an Oliver Stone film? Stone, the filmmaker with the razor-sharp bite of a political cartoon evident in such incendiary political dramas as "JFK" and "Nixon," rather audaciously chooses to put politics in the backseat of his George W. Bush biopic, "W." With its refusal to indulge in typical Stoneian melodrama and vengeful sociopolitical satire, "W." is Stone's most genius stroke of wit yet. He has truly topped himself, for what is more daring than treating Bush, one of the most universally ridiculed presidents in American history, like a human being? With the help of the terrific Josh Brolin, Stone accomplishes something truly special: he brings soulfulness to the political drama.

"W." bounces back and forth from Bush's presidency to his youth, filled with hard partying and failed jobs. This nonlinear structure makes Bush's life seem all the more surreal. Stone's shock cuts from past to present make for a dizzying experience. One sequence, for example, cuts from a young Bush confiding in his wife, Laura about the insecurity catalyzed by his father to President 'Dubya' planning a full-scale invasion of Iraq. These startling transitions inject the audience with dread and disbelief--disbelief that a man-child, party boy could go on to become the most powerful man in the world, a man with destruction at his fingertips. So, where does the soulfulness come in?

For the emotional power of this biopic journey, give credit to Josh Brolin for his sympathetic portrayal of our 43rd president. He transcends mere imitation of Bush and creates a charismatic and often tragic character. He engages the audience by portraying Bush as an everyman. He's sheepish in press conferences, quietly self-loathing in cabinet meetings. Brolin cuts through Bush's famous cocksureness, revealing his vulnerability. Most importantly, Brolin's Bush appears to be contemplating his place in the universe at all times, but especially in the film's magical closing shot in which he gazes up at the starry night sky, as if looking for answers. With this shot, Stone shows how he has changed as a filmmaker. For the first time in his career, he reveals that he doesn't have all the answers, that he can't fully cut through the darkness of the political world. The turmoil of our times is made all the more frightening and thought-provoking by his inability to reach a solid conclusion about it. Like Bush, all he can do is look up and wonder.

"Moon" Review

For those who think they know hard science fiction, you don't. I have not seen another sci-fi film filled with so much raw, frightening human emotion. "Moon's" setting may be cold and barren, but its story and characters are devastating and impossibly alive.

Sam Rockwell stars as Sam Bell, an astronaut sent to the moon to fulfill a three year contract of gathering materials to fuel Earth. Writer-director Duncan Jones is daring in that instead of showing you this long span of time and Sam's evolution, he sets the story two weeks before Sam's mission is over--when the psychological effects of isolation rear their ugly heads. The film starts right off the bat with Sam experiencing hallucinations and losing his temper. Like the great directors (Alfred Hitchcock, David Lynch, Michael Haneke), Jones instantly makes you feel unsafe in his hands. And the surprises just keep flowing.

The film takes a "Twilight Zone"-esque turn when Sam finds a man on the moon that appears identical to him. This is when Rockwell really shines. He creates a chemistry between he and...himself that is so convincing, it's really quite shocking. He adds humor and awkwardness to the relationship, making it both fun and achingly real.

Critics have complained that this film does not raise enough philosophical questions. Well, maybe it doesn't do so directly, but I found plenty of things to ponder like... Would I like myself if I was faced with a clone? How capable are we as a species of suspending disbelief? How far are we willing to protect our planet? Would we bend our morals to do so?

Jones pulls the rug out from under the audience not only in the story, but in the way he has marketed the film and the release date he has agreed to. It's a genius stroke of wit to make the audience expect a summer sci-fi spectacle/fast-paced thriller and deliver a methodical, haunting character study. The great thing about this film is that it could take place anywhere. The moon is just a backdrop for its story of loneliness and insanity. It does not depend too heavily on its sci-fi elements. It's one of the few science fiction films that depends instead on human drama.

"Moon" is a punch to the gut. When it's over, you won't know what hit you. In short, it's one of the best films of the year.

"Moon"

Grade: A

"Public Enemies" Review

Filmmaker Michael Mann is not one for escapism. He favors injecting the audience with harsh reality ("Heat," "Collateral"). Sometimes, his realism feels too manufactured ("Miami Vice"). However, his new film, Public Enemies, uses that feeling to its advantage. This is especially evident in the scene in which central character, iconic bankrobber John Dillinger (Johnny Depp), sits in a dark theatre watching a gangster film. As the images resembling his life unfold, Dillinger realizes that as close as they mirror him on the outside, they could never completely capture the real truth, the staggering pain from within. Mann realizes this too. And with his purposely gimmicky, gritty digital camerawork and ambiguous characters, Mann, like Depp's Dillinger in the theatre scene, telegraphs a wink to the audience: "Public Enemies" is only a movie.

Mann has never been so self aware. With this film, he takes his manufactured realism to the extreme, creating an effective, almost cathartic parody of himself and commentary on the hyperrealistic crime films he's helped inspire ("The Bourne Ultimatum," "The Lookout"). The film comments on the bare bones quality of recent crime dramas through the stilted relationships of its characters. "I like baseball, movies, fast cars, good clothes, and you. What else you need to know?" Dillinger plainly asks a woman early on in the film. Mann's version of Dillinger is symbolic of all the determined and therefore detached crime characters in film as of late: Jason Bourne, James Bond, etc. He is sometimes unbearably ambiguous and in that sense, he is Mann's critique of those characters. If you find yourself desperately wanting more insight into Dillinger and his pursuer, Melvin Purvis's behavior, Mann has achieved his goal. He is trying to point out what crime films similar to "Public Enemies" are currently lacking.

Mann also comments on the overwrought realism of crime films with his use of digital camerawork. In "Public Enemies," it seems that the more the visual style tries to recreate reality, the more it makes you aware that you are watching a movie. That is the point, though.

Now, one could argue that making a commentary on the flawed crime genre instead of trying to improve and transcend it is less than admirable. Some could also say that Mann is not trying to make a commentary at all and that "Public Enemies" is just a straightforward gangster flick. Like Mann, I hope that crime stories like these have more than meets the eye.

2009 Movie Gradebook

Just for kicks and giggles, I've graded this year's films thus far...

Watchmen B-
I Love You, Man A
Observe and Report B+
Star Trek A
Terminator Salvation D
Taken C+
Drag Me to Hell A-
The Taking of Pelham 1 2 3 A-
The Hangover B
Public Enemies A-

"The Taking of Pelham 1 2 3" Does Not Suck By A Long Shot

As cliched as this sounds, "The Taking of Pelham 1 2 3" is, very simply, everything a movie should be. It thrills the audience with its rich humor, complex characters, lively performances, blend of stylized and realistic violence, suspense, intensity, etc. To top it off, it is that rare kind of gritty action movie: the kind that emerges from the terror and violence with its heart intact. Most importantly, it brings with it a crucial element that is missing from most action movies of late: fun. I liken it to "Drag Me to Hell" in that it brings a sense of innocence back to its genre. The action genre has been hardened in the last few years by films like "The Bourne Ultimatum" and "The Dark Knight." "The Taking of Pelham 1 2 3" is perfect counterprogramming to those films. Where those films are engagements with the times in which we live, "Pelham" offers pure escapism. Although it is about an act of terrorism in New York (a subway hijacking), it does not highlight relevance to 9/11 or the War on Terror. It is not trying to pour salt on open wounds, it is trying to make the audience forget about those tragedies.

With "The Taking of Pelham 1 2 3," "Drag Me to Hell," "Star Trek," and a slew of other movies, we are entering a new Golden Age of Cinema. Movie buffs now flock to the theaters not to see hardhitting, politically allegorical films like they did in 2007 ("There Will Be Blood," "No Country for Old Men," "Zodiac," etc.), but to escape reality and experience good ole fashioned popcorn entertainment. The villain in "Pelham" is not Daniel Plainview. Not Anton Chigurh. And despite being viciously violent, he is not the Zodiac killer either. As portrayed by John Travolta, he is a live wire and an oddly likable guy. He is a real person with real emotions whereas the villains in "Zodiac" and "No Country for Old Men" were symbols, simple metaphorical representatives of our current enemies in the Middle East and at home. They represented faceless terror, greed, corruption. Ryder (Travolta) has a face. He has a personality, a sense of humor. And by the end of the film, you actually want to see him succeed. Travolta's performance is the best piece of acting I've seen this year thus far.

Director Tony Scott has never tried to be relevant or bring loftiness to his films. This is the only time his lack of relevance has been refreshing, though. This is also the only time simple popcorn entertainment has felt so good and so...necessary.

"The Taking of Pelham 1 2 3"

Grade: A-

Film Criticism 101

Anyone can call a movie “spellbinding,” “nail-biting,” “hilarious,” “incendiary,” and a slew of other flashy adjectives. This is not the aim of film criticism, though. Film criticism is about explaining, in explicit detail, why a movie is “spellbinding,” “nail-biting,” etc. Describe and analyze particular scenes from the movie that illustrate your praise or dislike. Compare the movie to the director and actors’ previous work or films within the same genre. A critic’s job is to contextualize movies, not promote them. Reviews should provoke intelligent discussion, not serve as simple endorsement, which brings me to my second point: DON’T FOCUS ON PERSUADING YOUR READERS.

This may sound like blasphemy to aspiring entertainment journalists, but film reviews should not read like persuasive essays convincing readers to either see or avoid a particular movie. The best reviews are the intimate ones that detail the critic’s personal experience with the movie, the ones that don’t try to “sell” the readers. Here’s an example from the late, legendary critic Pauline Kael…

“I came out of the theater, tears streaming, and overheard the petulant voice of a college girl complaining to her boyfriend, ‘Well I don't see what was so special about that movie.’ I walked up the street, crying blindly, no longer certain whether my tears were for the tragedy on the screen, the hopelessness I felt for myself, or the alienation I felt from those who could not experience the radiance of ‘Shoeshine.’ For if people cannot feel ‘Shoeshine,’ what can they feel? Later I learned that the man with whom I had quarreled had gone the same night and had also emerged in tears. Yet our tears for each other and for ‘Shoeshine’ did not bring us together. Life, as ‘Shoeshine’ demonstrates, is too complex for facile endings.”

What a lyrical review. Reviews should be like Kael’s: vivid outpourings of emotion that read almost like pages ripped out of someone’s diary. Unfortunately, most critics these days sound like car salesmen, promising their customers a “rip-roaring good time.” Don’t worry about how the audience will feel. Focus on how you feel. Reviews should be treated like any other form of personal expression. On that note, let’s look at some specific “do’s and don’ts” of film criticism.

DO’S

• Approach reviews like thesis papers. The more you follow a strict structure, the easier the review is to write. Like when writing a thesis paper, always follow a clear, logical progression of ideas.
  Stick to a major point. For example, if your thesis is, “With its understated direction and naturalistic performances, the film subverts genre expectations,” do not devote a paragraph to the eclectic quality of the soundtrack or the beauty of the costumes. Focus on what you set out to explore with your thesis: the understated direction and naturalistic performances.
  Always provide support for your opinions. If you write, “This film digs deep into the mind of Ray Charles,” explain how. If you say a film fails miserably in all aspects, explain exactly why and how it fails in each one of those areas.
  Use scenes from the movie as examples as much as possible to support your opinions.

DON'TS

• Don’t devote too much of the review to summarizing the plot. One brief paragraph is sufficient.
  Don’t write a paragraph for “miscellaneous opinions.” For example, after you’re done supporting your thesis, don’t write a paragraph like this--“In addition to the powerful performances, the film has an eclectic soundtrack full of interesting songs. Speaking of interesting elements, the film’s production design is unique as well. To top it off, this movie is full of shocking plot twists.”
  Try to avoid making statements that can be made without seeing the movie (For example: “the special effects are good,” “the film is action-packed.”) These observations can be made by simply watching the film’s previews.
  Don’t write from someone else’s point of view and don’t lower your standards. For example, don’t write, “Well, for a kids’ movie, it is good” or “‘Transformers’ fans are bound to like this movie.” Readers can see right through your biases and it is better to fully embrace your opinion than to lower your standards or apologize to fans.
  Don’t try to be conversational. You should not write about a movie the way you talk about it with friends. The more formal the writing, the more readers take you seriously.
  You don’t have to like everything. Do not be afraid to give a negative review to a movie that is otherwise universally acclaimed.

Fun In Hell: The Triumphant Return of the Horror Film

For a long time, there was no sense of magic, discovery, and most importantly, fun in horror films. Instead, we had deep, depressing forays into the human psyche ("The Ring," "The Orphanage," "Joshua," etc.). Horror films lost their innocence. They were grim and uncompromising--no longer about making viewers jump and laugh in terror, but about inflicting nightmares and shaking people to their core. When not dealing with psychological elements, filmmakers were stripping the horror genre down to its essence, delivering pure, unadulterated violence ("Saw," "Hostel"). It got to the point where audiences were no longer seeking out horror films for love of cinema, but for the desire to simply witness murder.

Sam Raimi's "Drag Me to Hell" is the perfect antidote to this disturbing behavior. It marks a return to the classic, escapist horror structure of 80s gems like Raimi's own "Evil Dead I" and "II" and with its bells and whistles, reminds us that what we are watching is only a movie. The "Hostel" films on the other hand are so immersed in violence that they no longer apply to the film world, thus becoming simple displays of pain and torture seemingly untouched by human hands. Unlike "Hostel," "Drag Me to Hell" carries with it a history of film and truly seems like a love letter to cinema. This is evident in the beginning in which the 80s-style Universal Pictures logo appears and operatic, 1930s-esque creature feature music plays over the credits. A strong, warm feeling of nostalgia rushed over me. For the first time in a long time, a horror movie evoked other films instead of focusing on the simple act of violence. I felt at home and more importantly, at peace with the film world. Thank you, Mr. Raimi.

New on DVD: "Gran Torino"

To honor today's DVD release of Clint Eastwood's "Gran Torino," I'm reprinting my review from The HiLite...

“I finish things. That’s what I do,” Walt Kowalski, the belligerent codger at the center of “Gran Torino,” says threateningly. Clint Eastwood, the actor behind this character, is also finishing something: his amazing acting career. And with the fantastic “Gran Torino,” he ends it gracefully. Eastwood also goes behind the camera, taking newcomer Nick Schenk’s screenplay and truly making the story his own. He turns it into a study of the iconic character he has established over his nearly 60-year career. “Gran Torino” is not only about Walt, but also Dirty Harry, Josey Wales, William Munny–the list goes on. Naming this film after a classic car is fitting for it is a highly nostalgic tribute to Eastwood’s career. This celebration of his work is infused with effective self-referential humor as well as poignancy and relevance.

Walt, a widower and former autoworker, is a crotchety old man who watches obsessively over his property while drowning himself in booze and cussing out neighbors. He's embittered by the demise of the industry he used to work for as well as the demise of Detroit where he lives. By extension, he's embittered by the demise of America as he sees it-- the decline of heavy industry, the decline of cities, the decline of patriotism, increase in immigrants from "Third World" counties, etc. Eastwood portrays a certain American stereotype, a nativist who is prejudiced against and suspicious of foreigners and who champions “buy American.” Walt calls his own son unpatriotic for driving a Japanese car. Here, to much success, Eastwood pokes fun at the mindset of his legendary Dirty Harry character, the infamously prejudicial screen cop. With Walt’s every snigger, Eastwood telegraphs a wink to the audience: Walt’s values, Eastwood implies, are not his own. In this sense, Eastwood is similar to TV personality Stephen Colbert in mocking the ultra-conservative attitude. Also like Colbert, he has powerful comic presence. However, the film takes a serious turn when Walt surprisingly befriends a Hmong boy named Thao and attempts to protect him from a ruthless gang.

Walt shows a sensitive side in his relationship with Thao that mirrors Eastwood’s own sensitivity. In telling the touching story of this strong, interracial friendship, Eastwood tries to convey that he is nothing like the violent, corrupt, racist roles he’s played in the past. In fact, all of his more recent directing efforts seem to deliberately stand against the behavior of those famous characters. Particularly in his revisionist western, “Unforgiven,” Eastwood plays against type as William Munny. Instead of portraying him as a cold-blooded gunslinger like in his earlier westerns, he creates a sympathetic, compassionate figure. For example, after shooting a man, Munny demands that the man be given water after noticing that he suffers from dehydration while dying. Eastwood conveys genuine concern and sorrow over the man’s pain. Another directorial effort, “Mystic River” also stands against violent behavior. Sean Penn’s character in the film is actually punished for his uncontrolled rage unlike Dirty Harry. “Gran Torino” is the most obvious of these films in highlighting Eastwood’s values. It is arguably his most personal and, therefore, most affecting piece of acting and direction.

In terms of relevance to 2008 films, “Gran Torino” joins “Iron Man” and “The Wrestler” in presenting a central character that mirrors the actor playing him. In “Iron Man,” Tony Stark’s transition from irresponsible playboy to ethically strong man resembles Robert Downey, Jr.’s transformation from wild, druggie celebrity to serious, respectable actor. Similarly, “The Wrestler” is not only about fictional, washed-up wrestler Randy Robinson, but the similarly battered actor playing him, Mickey Rourke. These performances are especially powerful precisely because of their self-reflective quality that allows filmgoers to see through the character and into the actor’s soul.

“Gran Torino” is speculated to be Eastwood’s last performance. The film community will undoubtedly be saddened if this is true. However, people couldn’t ask for a more perfect, beautiful swan song.

Secrets, Lies, and Spaceships: The State of Hollywood Spectacles

Comparing "Star Trek" and "Terminator Salvation," "Star Trek" is a much more honest Hollywood spectacle. It's honest in the sense that it is upfront about revolving around technology. Honest not only in its composition, but in the story itself. The characters relish the future and revel in the constantly evolving technology around them. "Terminator Salvation" on the other hand, is, for lack of a better phrase, full of shit.

"Terminator Salvation," a cautionary, "rage against the machine" vision of the future, embraces technology at the same time that it stands against it. "We must not act like machines in this war," John Connor (played by Christian Bale) says. The film fails to take that advice, though. With his strict adherence to formula, director McG is just as cold and calculating as the destructive machines at the film's forefront. He depends completely on computer-generated effects to engage the audience. For a film about human resistance to technology, there is very little, if no, trace of a human touch to the storytelling. Maybe McG was trying to emulate Stanley Kubrick's direction of "2001: A Space Odyssey." "2001's" warning was against the enslavement of humans to machines. Therefore, the fact that Kubrick was a slave to technological aspects in the making of the film made that warning more credible. The cold, detached, machine-like quality of the film that resulted added powerful irony as well. However, I don't think McG was this clever in his direction of "Salvation."

This irony is evident in many more science-fiction films however. Many of them stand against technology while using it to illustrate that very message. However, they have an earnestness about them unlike "Terminator Salvation." They realize their own irony and comment on it (i.e. "The Matrix," "2001," etc.) "2001" comments by making the machine character, HAL a more complex and dominant character than the humans in the film. "The Matrix" comments with its notion of a "dreamworld" used by humans that mirrors the purpose of movies themselves. McG's flaw is that he does not realize the irony in his "rage against the machine" story and how it was made with the very machines it rages against. He's not honest like "Star Trek" and we need more films with that quality.

Introductions

Hey,

I'm Sam and this blog is set up for my random movie thoughts among other things. I'm a second semester senior in high school (that is losing his mind waiting to graduate) and I write film reviews for my school newspaper, The Hilite (www.hilite.org).