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.