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-