2009: From Best to Worst

Update: Having looked over my list for a few days, I decided to re-organize it into a few categories. Though they are still ultimately listed from worst-to-best, here's how I'd describe the seventeen films I saw of 2009.

THE WORST
Old Dogs
The Hangover
2012

DISAPPOINTMENTS
Public Enemies
Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen
The Informant!
The Princess and the Frog

HONORABLE MENTIONS
Where The Wild Things Are
Brüno
Zombieland
Avatar
Watchmen

TOP FIVE
5. Inglourious Basterds
4. Up in the Air
3. Moon
2. Up
1. District 9

There you have it. May 2010 bring you all a happy new year and a wondrous new decade of movie viewing... and shit.

"Up in the Air" soars

I think I can safely say that I've seen all of the 2009 movies that I want to see/are available to see.

UP IN THE AIR (2009)

It's no coincidence that Ryan Bingham is an expert in traveling light.

Such is the life of Bingham (George Clooney), a man so emotionally cut off that he has no "personal baggage;" a man that lives hub-to-hub, hotel-to-hotel, flying away from whatever connections he makes in the sheer seconds it takes to buy a plane ticket.

"Up in the Air," Jason Reitman's directorial follow-up to 2007's "Juno," tackles some of today's most stressful issues but with enough Hollywood schmaltz to keep you from hanging yourself from the rafters of the cinema.

Bingham works for a company hired out to fire employees en masse, flying cross-country to do so. When an ambitious young newcomer to the company suggests that they move to carry out firings with webcams to cut costs and boost efficiency, Bingham feels threatened that his livelihood will be ransacked; that he will be forced to settle down somewhere and make commitment.

Reitman's commentary on the modern day social disconnect — something in which technology can easily be considered a culprit — is one that rings true, especially when transplanted to the character arc of Bingham. Does it serve as the catalyst to bring him toward a life with love, stability, and a house instead of a hotel room?

Guess you'll have to find out for yourself.

A-

"Avatar," fuck yeah!

I never thought I'd see pterodactyls versus airplanes in a movie. Thank you "Avatar."

AVATAR (2009)

"Avatar" is much like an Ohio State football game. For fifty-nine minutes and fifty-nine seconds, all you get is running up the middle and punts.

But then, at the last second, Tressel sends in his favorite unit, the field goal team, to boot the game-winning field goal through the uprights. With another notch in the win column, everyone goes home happy, blissfully neglecting the frustration of the first 3,599 seconds of the match.

"Avatar," a 160 minute epic, is much the same, building up and building up until a rousing and epic action finale that is sure to boost your testosterone levels up to "Jersey Shore" levels of unfathomable. That's not to say "Avatar" is perfect, as it is very much not so, suffering from an almost infinite level of exposition, as well as an overly simplistic story and the aesthetic of a video game, but in the end, "Avatar" is a rewarding, true-blue example of cinematic escapism that sends audiences off right.

The CGI ain't perfect - it's still noticeable and it's used in abundance - but it's used almost as well as any film that's used in it such force before it. On a technical level, "Avatar" is solid, though I'd be cautious to call it groundbreaking as the technical accomplishments of "Avatar" leave me wary of the future of filmmaking. But I suppose that's all a matter of preference, is it not? After all, the advances in computer graphics made the pros of "Avatar" possible.

Still though, despite its lengthy buildup, "Avatar" is a fine piece of escapism, one that takes us to other worlds and immerses us in their environment. Literally. And while the parallels to other films might instill an unwanted sense of deja vu ("'Dances with Wolves' in Space" is a common and accurate descriptor), "Avatar" serves up enough entertainment value to make the dent in your wallet entirely forgettable.

B

Duncan Jones shoots for the "Moon"

There have been quite a few allegedly great films that I've missed this year, so with awards season kicking into gear, I figure I might as well try to catch up now. After finally getting "Inglourious Basterds" and "The Hangover" under my belt, next in the queue was...

MOON (2009)

"I am the one and only."

Such poignant verse to describe the lonely, desolate nature of the moon, the place where Sam Bell (Sam Rockwell), a contract employee for a corporation mining the moon for alternative energy on Earth, has spent the last three years destitute of civilization.

"Moon," the freshman project of director Duncan Jones, is a triumph; a taut and thrilling science fiction adventure without the frills of contemporary outer space cinema. Conjuring up the echos of genre classics "2001: A Space Odyssey" and "Alien" as well as recent successes like Danny Boyle's "Sunshine," "Moon" is a terse, atmospheric film that succeeds in capturing the reclusive nature of the great beyond.

"Moon" has enough twists and turns to keep audiences interested, though despite its brisk 97 minute runtime, "Moon" tends to bog down in its midsection. However, a slow-moving middle isn't enough to bring "Moon" down as the flick benefits from a tour-de-force performance from Sam Rockwell, beautifully sterile production design, and a brooding, atmospheric musical accompaniment from Clint Mansell.

Though "Moon" presents nothing particularly new thematically with its presentation of space and its critique of big business, its translation to a lunar setting is fresh and commendable. Despite not being the spectacle of other recent sci-fi blockbusters like "Star Trek" and "Transformers," "Moon" is a thrilling, smart, and wonderfully lensed science fiction tale that shoots for the moon and succeeds in every way.

A-

"The Hangover" is the filmic equivalent to an actual hangover

Spoiler: The story of "The Hangover" is based around the fact that the four lead characters are accidentally roofied. As for me, well, I would have voluntarily roofied myself before watching "The Hangover" had I known what was about to pillage my senses for two hours.

THE HANGOVER (2009)

"The Hangover" has done something unimaginable. Without getting too hyperbolic, "The Hangover" has joined the ranks of cinema's greatest comedic achievements, alongside such titles as "Schindler's List," "Requiem for a Dream," and the part in "Bambi" when Bambi's mom died.

It's that unfunny.

But what can you expect from a film that appeals to the lowest common denominator? "The Hangover" is a celluloid wet dream for every frat guy in America; every bro's desire in life fulfilled. Really, it is...

Get drunk. Go to Vegas. Forget everything.

And what's up with this cast? Apart from Zack Galifianakis stealing the show, the rest of the non-farcical foursome falls horribly flat, with "The Office" star Ed Helms falling the hardest.

The biggest problem with "The Hangover" is one that tends to be particularly problematic for comedies: it's just not funny. It aims to be comical and misses the mark wildly, ultimately being 100 minutes of unfunny exposition that builds up to an unfunny denouement.

A blending of "Three Men and a Baby," "Tommy Boy," and "Old School," "The Hangover" winds up being a tremendous misfire; a flick that runs its duration without more than a snide snicker or an occasional throwback to an unoriginal plot device. Easily the most wildly overrated film of the year, "The Hangover" is a complete swing-and-a-miss that does little more than appeal to the popped-collar inside all of us.

D

"Inglourious Basterds" offers up fun... and body parts

I remember the weekend "Inglourious Basterds" came out. It was the weekend I puked up my kidney, had a 137 degree fever, sweat away 20% of my body weight in water, and lost my appetite for four days.

Bright side? I was thin and sexy. Down side? I missed the opening weekend for "Inglourious Basterds." A short review ensues.

INGLOURIOUS BASTERDS (2009)

You can usually pick out familiar cues in auteur cinema. Kubrick had the long tracking shots. Hitchcock had his focus on camera tricks.

Tarantino has gratuitous instances of intestines and brain matter being sprayed in your face.

"Inglourious Basterds" is no different from the other chapters in Tarantino's bloody library, only this time, over-the-top gore complements a pulpy, oh-how-we-wish-it-turned-out-that-way take on Hitler's Nazi reign during World War II. Though dialogue runs rampant, almost to the point that the film's 152 minute runtime starts to slack, the silly, overly-cinematic use of poetic (or in this case, historic?) license results in a fun, though incessantly gory, historical satire.

Despite being pedantic in pace as well as serving as a medium for Quentin Tarantino to jerk off to human carnage for mass audiences, "Basterds," benefiting from wondrous and exuberant performances from Christoph Waltz and Brad Pitt, serves up a fun, gory, and overly theatrical fictionalized account of World War II sure to rouse audiences, most especially in its final thirty minutes.

While talk of "Basterds" being the best film of the decade might be a bit of hyperbole, "Inglourious Basterds" is still a two-and-a-half-hour celebration of cinema that brings together superb storytelling and eccentric thespianism in successful form.

A-

"The Princess and the Frog" teaches stereotypes to a new generation

Brought to you by the same civil rights activists that gave the world "Song of the South," comes...

THE PRINCESS AND THE FROG (2009)

Let's face it. Pixar pissed people off.

When Disney/Pixar's "Toy Story" opened to unforeseen success in 1995, purists proclaimed it the end of an era; the death-blow to the long reign of hand-drawn animation. Disney's "Nine Old Men" were now "ninety-year-old men." Computers were in. Paper-and-pencil were faux pas.

A decade-and-a-half later, and under the supervision of John Lasseter as executive producer and Chief Creative Officer of Walt Disney Animation Studios (and ironically the founder of Pixar), Mickey and company are back doing what they do best, though sadly, their un-retirement isn't up-to-par.

"The Princess and the Frog" tells a familiar fable of ordinary Disney proportions. Though character work is fleshed and thoughtful, the story lacks any sense of iconic weight that propelled previous hand-drawn Disney classics to fame. Musical numbers at times pull their weight in heart and charm, but at other times are superfluous and boggy.

The animation here recalls the films of Disney past, though at times the computer-enhancement seems jarring. Still though, Disney's flourishing color palettes shine and the classic character designs pull through, making "The Princess and the Frog" a trip down memory lane that's worth the price of admission.

However, the one problem plaguing "The Princess and the Frog" is one that the hand-drawn Disney films have had for decades now and have shown an unwillingness to change. "The Princess and the Frog" has no qualms bringing stereotypes to life, moreso typecasting the people (and animals, I guess) of Louisiana as toothless, jazz-loving Cajuns who want to do nothing more than eat gumbo and play with voodoo.

Is that really something you want to perpetuate in your child's head?

Regardless, "The Princess and the Frog" serves as an adequate memory-jolt of the classic Disney films that are staples in everyone's library. Though the film lacks the iconography of the more heralded Disney flicks and seems to have no problem painting the picture that all Southerners have rampant tooth decay and a love for Tobasco sauce, "The Princess and the Frog" remains an apt 97 minutes of Disney magic rekindled for a new generation of movie-goers.

B-

"Old Dogs" should be put down

PETA can blow me.

OLD DOGS (2009)

Picture this: You go to the movies. The lights go down, the film reel starts up.

Then, out of the darkness, a shadowy figure - one that looks a lot like John Travolta - comes along, unzips their pants, and lays a hot, steaming pile right in your lap. Not finished, the shadowy figure slowly turns around and lets a golden shower loose right into your eye sockets. And to complete this triple crown of bodily function doom, the guy bends down, opens his mouth, and projectile vomits square into your piehole.

That's about what watching "Old Dogs" was like.

"Old Dogs" tells the tail (get it?) of two annoying, washed-up actors who run a sports agency. There's an old dog, hot old women, piss-poor child actors, Seth Green, and other shit in there too, but it really doesn't matter because you're not going to watch this movie anyway.

Likely the reason why Bernie Mac died, "Old Dogs" is a miserable excuse for slapstick humor, one that falters in every sense of professional filmmaking. Though John Travolta and Robin Williams make for a more-than-impressive dramatis personae, no amount of starpower could save this trainwreck. Full of cheap gags and cheap humor, "Old Dogs," the Aldi's of major motion pictures, is an hour-and-a-half of sensory rape that no respectable human should be subject to.

F

2012 brings the apocalypse of the brain

Preface: Don't ever see an idiotic movie on vicodin. Drowsiness does not tango with dying brain cells.

2012 (2009)

They say movies are a recession-proof business. It's true. The escapism of movies allows the everyday Joe Schmo to get away from the horrors of their 9-to-5.

But don't tell that to "2012" director Roland Emmerich.

Emmerich's newest chapter in his disaster porn autobiography is one that bottoms out in IQ, resulting in a movie-going experience akin to getting poked in the eye with needles laden with AIDS continuously for 158 grueling minutes of cinematic plundering.

I'm not even going to bother with an intricate plot synopsis, mostly because there is no [intricate] plot to begin with. The jist of the story is that a solar-flare-of-death happens and causes the layers of the Earth to get completely fucked. Then things blow up. That's "2012."

"2012" (or "Ericsson" as it will further be called thanks to blatant Sony product placement) is essentially a B-movie with an A-budget; a film that fails on every creative level with the subtlety of a shotgun barrel to boot. A narrative as emaciated as an Olsen Twin, the paint-by-numbers reunion of divorced lovers in times of TOTAL FUCKING DESTRUCTION, and rampant cheesy dialogue come together to create a catharsis of bad, worse, and worst elements in the movie version of a Molotov cocktail.

But seriously, John Cusack outrunning the simultaneous implosion of all of Earth while driving through crumbling office buildings and collapsing off-ramps?

as;dlkalksj'f---------------

Sorry, my brain just died.

To make matters worse, Emmerich's third-grade level understanding of thematics and symbolism drives "Ericsson" to unfathomable levels of atrocious. "Ericsson" runs-off a checklist of high school English vocabulary terms, but sadly, it's all handled cheaply and with the nuance of getting hit in the face over and over again with a big black penis.

A series of arks with a boy named Noah on one of them? What a profound Biblical allusion.

Sigh. A big-budget CGI spectacle trying to be something it's not is nothing more than utterly contemptible, laughable for all the wrong reasons, and thoroughly nauseating and unwatchable.

A woeful disaster in every sense of the word, "Ericsson" is a film that should be panned by every self-respecting intelligent being. Though not short on scale, "Ericsson" longs for intelligence, and coupled with a cheese factor that soars to new heights and the intricacy of a NASCAR race, it winds up being a dumbfounding farce of a film that further sinks the cinematic medium to embarrassingly low levels of intelligence.

D-

The WILD THINGS have been found!

Another of my most anticipated movies of 2009 is down, this time it's...

WHERE THE WILD THINGS ARE (2009)

Maurice Sendak's beloved children's novel has hit the screen in glorious fashion.

Directed by Spike Jonze, "Where The Wild Things Are" presents the cherished literary tale in a beautifully preserved order, not only serving up a highly imaginative flick but one that's bleak, melancholy, and at times, not-so-fun.

"Where The Wild Things Are," despite its triumphs, has its flaws; the abundance of shaky-cam is jarring and the story is a little too agile for its own good, lacking a sense of narrative meat even after the wonky first act of exposition. Granted this, "Where The Wild Things Are" still manages to capture the jist of the novel in successful form. The majestically whimsical story, counter-balanced by the dreary atmosphere and dystopian nature of the world of the Wild Things, is sufficiently preserved.

"Wild Things" benefits from an ace voice ensemble, led by James Gandolfini, Forrest Whitaker, Catherine O'Hara, and Chris Cooper. The flick also features a beautifully melancholic score by Karen O of the Yeah Yeah Yeahs.

"Where The Wild Things Are" is a winner; a film that can not only rekindle the wonders of childhood imagination but also provide some mature themes for older audiences to appreciate. While not perfect, and certainly not an innocent 101 minute romp, "Where The Wild Things Are" is an apt adaptation of a beloved piece of children's literature that deserved the respectful and eccentric cinematic imagining it received.

Let the wild rumpus start indeed.

B

ZOMBIELAND hands out gore and laughs!

Another brief review, this one for...

ZOMBIELAND (2009)

As far as modern zombie comedies go, there's "Shaun of the Dead" and, well, just about everyone else. In a genre riddled with camp and silliness, it's hard to find that perfect harmony between gore and comedy, but thanks to directorial newcomer Ruben Fleischer, "Zombieland" strikes that chord flawlessly.

Set against the typical zombie apocalypse, the socially-inept, WOW-playing "Columbus" (Jessie Eisenberg) has somehow survived the revolt of the undead in Austin, Texas and sets forth for Columbus, Ohio (the lead characters are named after the cities they are from or on their way to). On the way he comes across Tallahassee (Woody Harrelson), a zombie-killing machine, whose weakness for Twinkies leads them to a confrontation in a grocery store with the feisty Wichita (Emma Stone) and Little Rock (Abigail Breslin). The fearsome zombie-killing-foursome then head off for California and the supposed zombie-free magical amusement park Pacific Playland but not without some serious sexual tension, Bill Murray, and awesome zombie ownage mixed in.

Though "Zombieland" is a little light on actual zombies, the flick has more than enough laughs to compensate. Woody Harrelson turns in a bravura performance as the cool and funny yet flawed hero Tallahassee and Eisenberg's go as the dorky guy - as clichéd as it is - works.

While gory and over-the-top, "Zombieland" delivers laughs, gore, and cool zombie kills. It's nothing particularly profound but it's wildly entertaining and zany enough to make it worthwhile.

B+

In other news, the much anticipated "Toy Story 3" trailer hit the interwebs (and showings of the "Toy Story" and "Toy Story 2" 3D double feature) this week. Here it is in all of its beautifully-rendered glory:

"Toy Story 3" hits theaters on June 18, 2010.

Matt Damon!

A brief review for MATT DAMON! in...

THE INFORMANT! (2009)

This hadn't really been on my radar until I started seeing the commercials for it flood the air over the last couple weeks. A strong feeling of "Burn After Reading" rocked my soul, and since I thoroughly enjoyed said theatrical adventure, "The Informant" had made its way to my cinematic horizon.

"The Informant!" is a dark comedy; a flick that exposes big business and the buffoonery behind it. When Mark Whitacre (Damon) supposedly busts open a lead on a mole in the company, he seeks out the help of FBI agents Brian Shepard (Scott Bakula) and Bob Herndon (Joel McHale) before leading them on a wild goose chase that sends Whitacre to his own demise.

Acclaimed director Steven Soderbergh provides a workman-like dark corporate comedy, though unfortunately, it fails to reach the same stratosphere of entertainment as the superior Coen Bros. flick "Burn After Reading." Despite an intricate and Crichton-esque narrative, as well as some jocular interludes of stream-of-consciousness from Damon, "The Informant!," like "Funny People" before it, fails to find its feet and, in the end, lacks a sense of identity and importance.

Despite being totally absurdist and in-your-face ironic, "The Informant!" is a dark comedy that doesn't satisfy as much as others before it. Though the upped intelligence quotient from your typical, run-of-the-mill Will Ferrell "comedy" is laudable and Damon's eccentric, quirky performance steals the show, the film tended to find itself mired in ironic plot twists and a general sense of bipolarism that held it back from reaching a very attainable level of greatness.

You could do worse this weekend, though. Much, much, much worse. You could see the new Tyler Perry movie.

B-

DISTRICT 9 satisfies my brain and my boy parts

At the beginning of the year, only two dates on my movie calendar were circled. May 29 for Pixar's UP and August 14 for DISTRICT 9. Fortunately for me (and my sanity), both movies absolutely fucking delivered.

DISTRICT 9 (2009)

It was a sad day for many when the much maligned Halo film project was canned.

On the other hand, it was a glorious day when Peter Jackson and Neill Blomkamp decided to make an intelligent and damn cool alien movie that will keep a tent pitched in my pants for the next couple days.

The tale of DISTRICT 9 starts off in the 80's when an alien craft comes to Earth and hovers over Johannesburg, South Africa. After a long period of inactivity, the ship is drilled into and found to contain nearly two million sickly worker aliens absent of their higher-ups. After being forced out of the ship and into a Johannesburg slum called District 9, multinational weapons and research organization MNU takes over control of the camp, looking to harness alien technology and weaponry for profit. Upon a new task to evict the aliens into the new concentration-camp-like District 10, MNU operative Wilkus van der Merwe (Sharlto Copley) accidentally comes in contact with an alien substance, which of course leads to proverbial shit hitting the proverbial fan.

DISTRICT 9 makes some fairly obvious allusions to apartheid and racism, but instead of ever becoming overtly and annoyingly preachy, DISTRICT 9 presents a methodical real-world documentary that transitions to a steroid-induced alien action flick. By no means mistake this for a bad thing as DISTRICT 9 presents a final act as tense and as awesome as you'll see in any science fiction film crafted in the last two decades; an action finale so savvily crafted that I don't know if I can ever look at alien films or projectile pigs in the same light again.

Newcomer Neill Blomkamp's direction is fabulous. Though the documentary aesthetic trend is nothing particularly new these days, its use in DISTRICT 9 heightens the sense of realism to alarming levels. As a sci-fi/alien movie nerd, this particularly tickled my balls. I don't know about everyone else, but I wanna know what happens when aliens land and Will Smith isn't there to talk to them in ebonics. Also on display is South African actor Sharlto Copley (Wikus), a virtual one-man bravado of a performance on which the entire weight of the film's narrative rests.

While DISTRICT 9's unconventional real-life documentary feel may leave casual viewers cold, DISTRICT 9 appeals to the desires of every virgin sci-fi fan that sacrificed two hours jacking it to Pokemon for two hours of basking in DISTRICT 9's glory. DISTRICT 9 never falls to TRANSFORMERS levels of retarded, and while big CGI set pieces can be feasts for the eyes, DISTRICT 9's sparkling visual effects coupled with fuckin' sweet and relatively grounded action and an original story that feels eerily real make DISTRICT 9 a must see for any self-respecting sci-fi fan (or any self-respecting dude, for that matter).

I wanna see this again and again until my balls are empty of my man juices and I am no longer physically capable of producing the chemicals that define me as a male. Don't get me wrong, though. While DISTRICT 9 is a killer action flick, it's a science fiction film that the genre needs. A tremendous and welcome boost in originality and sheer cool factor, DISTRICT 9 is a breath of fresh air that everyone needs to take.

A

JOVIAL HUMANS and the consequent roller coaster of emotions

What will hold me over 'til DISTRICT 9? The answer: DICK JOKES (or FUNNY PEOPLE).

FUNNY PEOPLE (2009)

If you were like most normal high schoolers, or at least like my sisters or Avril Lavigne, you went through the inevitable range of fads as you strove your find your true identity as a teenager. It probably started with the hippie stage, where you smoked grass, crafted such fine art as tye-dye t-shirts and peace quilts, listened to magnanimous musical artists like 311, and lounged around all day accomplishing absolutely nothing. After that, you likely transitioned to the goth stage, when one day you suddenly relished in your own self-loathing and angst at the sight of a Hot Topic at your favorite hang-out spot: the mall. And in the final stage of self-discovery, you came to the realization that you enjoyed the works of immortal wordsmiths like Soulja Boy and Snoop Doggy Dog, wearing t-shirts that are long enough to provide your body complete warmth in the dead of winter, and playing high-stakes casino games like street craps. Yep, you finally realized that you were black.

Judd Apatow's third directorial effort is one that has a noticeable (and similar) identity crisis. While more mature than THE 40-YEAR-OLD VIRGIN and KNOCKED UP, FUNNY PEOPLE certainly has its share of the typical Apatow-crew lewd humor. This is all fine and dandy, but for a film that tries to yank at the very cords of your vagina, FUNNY PEOPLE is a film that will leave you at a strange paradox wondering whether or not you found the flick funny or sad.

FUNNY PEOPLE is a nice looking film, thanks especially to the somewhat confusing choice of the renowned Janusz Kaminski as cinematographer. For all intents and purposes, FUNNY PEOPLE is an adequately directed film, highlighted by some old school home movies of Adam Sandler, but the cheese factor that Apatow was able to qualm in his previous rom-coms is laughable in its abundance here. Adam Sandler suffices, but while he delivers a performance certainly better than that of his previous stinkers like LITTLE NICKY and CLICK, he's as dull as dishwater when he's not making his SATURDAY NIGHT LIVE era funny noises (why wasn't this movie called FUNNY NOISES?). A slimmed-down Seth Rogen is also adequate; he's funny but not over-the-top and annoying for those that are tired of his humor.

FUNNY PEOPLE is funny. It has its sad moments, but it never really sold me on the dramatic end. I guess the only real thing that I was sold on walking out of the theater was that I have a crush on Aubrey Plaza. My new most anticipated movie of 2010: SCOTT PILGRIM VS. THE WORLD. I don't know who you are, Scott Pilgrim, but your girl Aubrey does strange things to my boy parts.

C+

Note: no more stars. Since there are more letter grades than stars (on a five-star scale and without half-stars, and counting pluses and minuses, of course), I like the new abundance of choices with letters better. Maybe I should try to learn the Chinese alphabet for this purpose... Nah, fuck that.

Next up: DISTRICT 9. Fuck yeah!

BRÜNO ist vergnügt!

I don't know of many leading men in film today that are as polarizing as Sacha Baron Cohen. You either loved BORAT or you absolutely despised it. As for me, well, BORAT was a true side-splitter, and the highly anticipated follow-up BRUNO was certainly no let-down.

BRÜNO (2009)

Buttons are pushed. People are mad. Dildos are inserted.

BRUNO goes there.

The follow up to Sacha Baron Cohen's 2006 smash-hit mockumentary BORAT, BRUNO is both a resounding triumph of jocosity as well as another perspicacious look into the naiveté of overly-conservative culture. Looking for a new highway to fame after a disastrous fashion show incident, Bruno heads off for America looking to start fresh as an A-lister. After some utterly outlandish attempts for quick fame fall to the wayside — including a talk show where Paula Abdul sits on Mexicans, an uncomfortably funny spinning and talking wiener, and the adoption of an African baby named O.J. — Bruno realizes that going straight is the only alternative, seeking the help of some sidesplitting confrontations with "gay converting" priests, good ol' boy hunters, and an arena full of bloodthirsty hicks at a cage match.

There are quite a bit of incommodious moments in BRUNO that are sure to weed out those who are easily offended by such antics. BRUNO makes no qualms to push the button in terms of what folks find socially and morally acceptable straight from the get-go, including a completely absurd montage involving an exercise bike turned into a dildo inserter. A film for the squeamish BRUNO ain't, but beyond all of the excessive homosexuality, penises in strange suction cups, and ridiculous gay caricatures, BRUNO is a film that, like BORAT, is an eye-opener into how the supposedly culturally liberal West is, in fact, quite the opposite.

BRUNO is lewd, shocking, and downright hilarious. And let's face it, if we were talking about BARBARA instead of BRUNO and audiences were being barraged with boobs instead of balls, not nearly as many common folk would walk out of the theaters with their panties in a bunch. That's why BRUNO is genius — the people that Sacha Baron Cohen is making fun of are exactly the type of people that are offended by his provocative and shocking commentaries.

Bravo, Mr. Cohen. You know how to make me laugh.

Though I should probably be in the hospital getting the ulcer I undoubtedly got from the 80 minutes of laughter that BRUNO gave me, I'm going to give a mid-year run-down of the few films that interested me enough to go see:

1. UP
2. BRUNO
3. WATCHMEN
4. TRANSFORMERS: REVENGE OF THE FALLEN
5. PUBLIC ENEMIES

Next up is DISTRICT 9 on August 14, but since Judd Apatow really knows how to tickle my private parts, I'm sure I'll be catching FUNNY PEOPLE at some point prior to the release of DISTRICT 9. I'm okay with that. *shrug*

PUBLIC ENEMIES disappoints

Though the summer movie season is hitting the halfway mark, only a couple films slated for summer release remain marked on my schedule. I knocked off one tonight, PUBLIC ENEMIES, and while so much about it seemed promising, the end result was a tremendous disappointment.

PUBLIC ENEMIES (2009)

Let's pretend that somehow, by the grace of god almighty, you've just caught wind of a pristine, untouched gold mine in the middle of nowhere. You gather your equipment, your crew (if you so choose), and you head out to pillage this cave of unforeseen fortune and happiness. You get there, ready to behold a new life of affluence and opulence, only to find that inside this supposedly prosperous mine is actually a room full of freshly pinched turds. Big. Brown. Turds.

That's PUBLIC ENEMIES.

Director Michael Mann's take on 1930's bank robber John Dillinger is a wonky flick, one that suffers from an erratic narrative that floats for two hours on a flimsy story. Depsite the fact that PUBLIC ENEMIES seems to be fairly heavily derailed from actual historical events, ENEMIES tells its tale in three pieces: Christian Bale (playing Melvin Purvis) talks, Christian Bale sends men with guns to some place, Christian Bale and Johnny Depp (as Dillinger) shoot at each other. Rather, rinse, repeat for 140 minutes and you have a movie as dull as PUBLIC ENEMIES.

Though Mann has never been one for an overtly polished aesthetic, it's taken to an entirely new level in PUBLIC ENEMIES, choosing to forgo standard film in favor of (largely) handheld, digital video. Whilst Mann's intentions to give the film a more realistic and documentary feel are understandable, the end result is a cheap and amateur aesthetic that is nearly impossible to fall for. Ugly and meretricious, PUBLIC ENEMIES never sells its pseudo-documentary look, instead distracting from a story that's already razor-thin to begin with.

To make matters worse, the Ali/Frazier collision of acting superpowers is grievously disheartening. Those that aren't too fond of Christian Bale won't be particularly wooed by PUBLIC ENEMIES as Bale's protagonist, fed investigator Melvin Purvis, is a flavorless, empty potato sack of a character that expounds all previous complaints about Bale's traditionally callous screen presence. Depp suffices as Dillinger, though it's not enough to create anything particularly memorable. Dillinger's character arc is equally as unimpressive, despite some terribly lame tropes that try to move it forward. The real star here is Marion Cotillard... simply because she's hot.

Bland, visually uninteresting, and suffering from a shoddy story and uninspired acting, PUBLIC ENEMIES ends up being colossally disappointing as well as terribly frustrating. At least I can take solace knowing that I got to see Marion Cotillard with a blurred-out nipple. Is that weird? Where's that gold mine again?



In significantly better news, the theatrical trailer for the Peter Jackson produced DISTRICT 9 hit the interweb today. After UP, DISTRICT 9 was the only other summer film that I really had my eyes on. Check it out.

TRANSFORMERS 2 brings the rain!

I'll admit that I'm one of the few brainless bozos out there that got a kick out of the first TRANSFORMERS. Sure it was big and dumb but it was entertaining nonetheless. Anywho, I caught the follow-up last night, and unsurprisingly, I found it to be another fun piece of harmless popcorn entertainment.

TRANSFORMERS: REVENGE OF THE FALLEN (2009)

If one had to describe the experience of watching TRANSFORMERS: REVENGE OF THE FALLEN, it'd probably be like eating a bag of testosterone and steroids. It's big, it's dumb, and it's 150 minutes of relentless, big-time Michael Bay spectacle.

Bay doesn't really bring much new to REVENGE other than an affinity for close-ups on ball-sacks, butts, and bosoms. Though Bay has amped up the scale, featuring an epic destructive climax on the Egyptian pyramids, the intelligence quotient has dropped dramatically, leaving one with a hopeless sense of derangement and stupefaction once the credits begin to roll.

That's not to say REVENGE isn't worth the bang for your buck, as there is certainly plenty of bang, as well as crashing metal, explosions, and sheer awesomeness. REVENGE never tries to be something it's not, and while virtually every second of screen time we see humans is so humiliatingly awful to the point that your orifices will begin to bleed, the sheer cool-factor of the robots, their overly-romantic notions of honor and justice, and the [nearly incomprehensible] fight scenes make REVENGE a justifiable watch.

TRANSFORMERS: REVENGE OF THE FALLEN is sound entertainment; a film that appeals to the lowest common denominator and does it spectacularly with the grandest form of hick charm (see: illiterate and buck-toothed black characters, relentless and surprising foul language and a blatant love for ass and tits). Throw away the racial stereotypes, wanton cuts to dog-on-dog butt-humping, a gratuitous and uncomfortable affinity for scrotums, and dialogue straight out of a Danielle Steele novel and you get two-and-a-half hours of a harmless, fun, firey metal extravaganza that defines the nature of summer movie season.

Pixar's UP shoots for the sky

Every so often a film comes along that reminds us why we cherish the medium so much in the first place.

UP, Disney/Pixar's tenth film, does just that.

UP (2009)

Directed by MONSTERS, INC. helmer Pete Docter, UP tells the tale of the irascible 78-year-old Carl Fredricksen (voiced by Ed Asner), a former balloon salesman, who when faced with eviction to a rest home, ties thousands of balloons to his house for a voyage to South America to honor the childhood dream of his now deceased wife Ellie. When Russell, an eager and persistent "wilderness scout" is inadvertently brought along for the ride, a wild and adventurous trek breaks out as Carl and Russel, along with a rare bird Kevin and a (sort of) talking dog Dug, team up as the old man searches for the place that he and his wife fantasized over since youth.

UP succeeds in the same manner that every Pixar film - with maybe the exception of CARS - did before it. Highlighted by a moving montage showing the evolution of Carl and Ellie's relationship - from the high of pregnancy to the low of miscarriage; from courtship, marriage, and the crafting of their house from scratch to coming to grips with the death of his wife - UP makes no qualms going into territory that most animated films wouldn't dare. UP takes its viewers on a cavalcade of emotions; it's ardent and lugubrious, but also starkly blithe and intrepid, leaving a fully-rounded and realized flick that hits on all notes.

The audacity and lack of regard for conventions is what makes Pixar's output, UP most notably, so rewarding, especially when the seemingly invincible production house comes out on the other end sparkling each and every time. Last time Pixar did it with a film with virtually no human dialogue, just plain old adorable robot infatuation. This time it's the beauty of love, the disconsolate nature of death, the bleak reality of growing old, and the rounding of a character arc for a man that realizes sometimes you just have to let go. It's stuff that comes from a magical partnership between Walt Disney and his company and an animation studio that is consistently re-writing (or just ignoring altogether) the rulebook.

Though the film loses a little steam in its final act, the consummate beauty of the first act, as well as the sparkling humor and rip-roaring adventure of the second, makes UP not only a beautifully realized film, but also a film that will almost assuredly bring Pixar their fifth Best Animated Feature trophy next year at the Oscars.

UP will make you laugh. UP will make you cry. And above all, UP manifests what it is that kindles our love for watching movies.



With the release of UP this weekend comes the teaser trailer for TOY STORY 3. Keeping with Pixar tradition, the trailer is a teaser in every sense of the word, but since TOY STORY is near-and-dear to my heart and one of the definitive movies of my childhood, I feel obliged to share this glorious, nostalgia-inducing video with all of you:

June 18, 2010. Can't wait! :)

The Watchmen have been watched

Zack Snyder worries me. I hated 300 more than anything in the world. I read Watchmen. Loved it. I hoped for the worst. Two viewings later, I'm entirely pleased. Whew.

WATCHMEN (2009)

Few things in the world are more satisfying than a fully realized film adaptation of a literary pièce de résistance.

WATCHMEN is one of those.

After years of roadblocks and missed opportunities, Zack Snyder has delivered Alan Moore's magnum opus to the big screen in sparkling fashion. Though WATCHMEN is not without Snyder's trademark masturbatory cinematography and cheesily edited action scenes, WATCHMEN offers up a shimmering and shrewd story that pays great respect to the infinitely dignified graphic novel to which it's based.

While WATCHMEN might be touted as a fanboy's film in its impudent panel-by-panel, line-for-line re-creation of the comics, its devotion to the source material is certainly not cause for complaint. Snyder's meticulous imagining of the characters, settings, and themes is more than enough to please not only the most hardened comic book fans but also those who went to see WATCHMEN looking for a little more brains than beauty.

Audiences going into WATCHMEN expecting a Herculean, 117 minute brainfart like 300 should rethink what they're in for. WATCHMEN chronicles vigilante crime-fighters who face a murder-mystery amidst the backdrop of the nuclear paranoia of the Cold War without using huge CGI set pieces with super-villains dressed up like robotic cephalopods. There's moral ambiguity, political commentary, social upheaval, and some good ol' high-school-level man-versus-man struggle. It's deep stuff in a genre full of pedestrian superficiality.

Apart from a laughingly embarrassing sex scene in an Owlship, a Richard Nixon who seems to be suffering from bloating of the face (and apparently Pinocchio syndrome), the biggest uncut CG dick you'll see in movies, and distracting speed ramps and slow-mo, WATCHMEN has been done definitive justice on the silver screen. Changing gears from 300 to WATCHMEN proved worrisome, but Zack Snyder's final product has certified itself to be more than sufficient in telling the tale that Alan Moore envisioned in 1986. Handsomely photographed and audaciously keen, WATCHMEN is an entirely apt consummation of a graphic novel that deserved nothing less.

Will you be watching the Watchmen?

One of the twentieth century's most celebrated pieces of literature is about to hit the silver screen.

It's been pegged as genius, a masterpiece, trailblazing and groundbreaking. It's been hailed by TIME Magazine as one of the 100 greatest novels since 1923. It's a novel with more accolades on its covers than there are words on the Rosetta Stone.

It's Watchmen.

Written in 1986 as the brainchild of visionary graphic novelist Alan Moore and drawn by Dave Gibbons, Watchmen serves up one of the medium's most profound and grown-up stories, exploring the role of vigilante superheroes in a dystopian America of the 80's engulfed by the paranoia of nuclear armageddon.

Watchmen is by no means "standard" comic book fare and should not be treated as such. There's no rooftop swinging, villains with tentacles (well, scratch that), heroes gone emo, or slutty blonde damsels-in-distress waiting for the next costumed paladin to fly by for a make-out session (I'm looking at you, Spiderman). That's not Watchmen.

Moore's chef d'oeuvre probes further beyond the superficial stuff of today's cinematic comic-based drivel (apart from THE DARK KNIGHT, of course), exposing the conflict that a group of morally ambiguous vigilantes faces by combating the underbellies of the world without a speck of public support. Think of Watchmen as an account of what superhero life would be like if superheroes actually did exist in the real world, complete with angry mobs, a big blue naked guy, and lots of grit.

So why see the film?

Early reviews pit WATCHMEN as one of the most faithful film adaptations of a literary work ever put together. With source material as expertly crafted as Watchmen's, there's no glaring downside in that regard, though the sheer mention of the world "squid" might be enough to divide those with previous knowledge of the novel. But at this point, less than a week before release, it seems as if Watchmen might be one of the few pieces of literature to get the faithful, respectable cinematic treatment that it deserves.

But it all sounds too good to be true, doesn't it? Could a truly great novel transcend media and become a legitimate artistic triumph on both the page and screen? Director Zack Snyder says hold the phones.

Snyder's directorial rèsumè is unsettlingly sparse. Despite remaking DAWN OF THE DEAD in 2004, the only other mainstream film to Snyder's credit is fellow graphic novel adaptation (and a film accepted and supported by countless posters and universal DVD ownership in fraternities across America) 300. While 300 was certainly a romp; a film that had no problem telling audiences that it was more about flash (and flesh) than brains, it didn't possess nearly the same depth that Watchmen does - a sense of depth necessary to tell this particular story with justice. Can Snyder put the cheesy slow-mo, overblown fantasy aethestic, and general disinterest for plot aside and deliver a film that has no qualms exploring rich psychological issues and social commentaries in the same vein that the source material does?

You'll have to watch the Watchmen to find out.

Why you (probably) didn't watch the Oscars...

Odds are that you weren't in one of the 35% of American households with a television that tuned into the 81st Annual Academy Awards Sunday night.

I don't blame you.

For two straight painstaking years now, the Academy has done nothing to swoon the public, opting to favor under-the-radar, limited release productions over populist Hollywood fare. For a group of folks that had no qualms catering to the blockbuster big dogs over the years, this recent change of pace has been visibly alarming and more than unsettling. With mega-hits like GONE WITH THE WIND, TITANIC, and LORD OF THE RINGS taking home serious Oscar hardware in years past, it appeared as if the Academy hadn't a single bother rewarding good Hollywood product. So why all of the sudden turn that on its head and shun today's powerhouse earners, like 2008's WALL-E and THE DARK KNIGHT, from rewards in the major categories?

Not only did the aforementioned flicks earn a hefty profit for their studios, grossing over $1.5 billion worldwide collectively, both were also overwhelmingly critically lauded, garnering a 96% and 94% on Rotten Tomatoes respectively (with WALL-E being the best reviewed wide-release movie of the year). Though the films combined for fourteen nominations in total, they garnered only three victories, only one of which was in a major category (which of course was Ledger's shoo-in win for Supporting Actor). With virtually every sentient being on the planet in harmony on the quality of these films, it would seem logical that they did something right, yet in the face of public approval, the Academy seems to turn the other cheek. Why? Well because we're dealing with artists, of course.

Think of Academy members as artsier, snobbier, slightly-less-batshit-crazy clones of Rod Blagojevich. They politick their agendas and they politick them real good. THE DARK KNIGHT didn't get a nomination for Best Pic purely because it's a superhero action film. Why would anyone let a film in the same genre as SPIDERMAN 3 and THE SPIRIT be considered in the same breath as a flick like SLUMDOG MILLIONAIRE? And WALL-E? WALL-E didn't get any love in the major categories because it's animated. The Oscars did their best to keep animation from sniffing Best Picture by creating its own category for it after BEAUTY AND THE BEAST stole a nomination in the category in 1991. To voters, no live actors means no little statuette (though if current trends continue, no gays, retards, or Holocaust means no little statuette, either). The Academy has plenty of other biases to complain about, like handing Scorsese every major award in 2007 for THE DEPARTED, a film thought by many to be decidedly inferior to his other works that were Oscar snubs, but that's beside the point.

By no means am I implying that the Academy should start dismissing all lesser-known stuff for popcorn cinema. I'm simply offering that they should give the big-budget movies a chance, especially when they deserve one. And why not? The Academy are a business and they see the revenue from the ceremony's broadcast. They are only hurting themselves when nobody tunes in.

Maybe next year will be different. Maybe it won't. I have been hearing through the grapevine though that Michael Bay has reworked Shia LeBeouf's character in TRANSFORMERS 2 to be a homo with Downs that fights Nazi Decepticons. Watch out, Megatron. This one's Oscar gold.

Wrapping up the Oscar bait of '08

I haven't seen all of the hyped up award flicks of 2008 yet, but since I had a month off for the holiday season, I tried to take advantage as best I could to catch-up on a few films that had made their way to the Columbus cinemas. I've seen all of the buzzed-up films I want to see, with the exception of THE WRESTLER which I'm really anxious to see, especially after watching Mickey Rourke stumble up the steps on his way to accepting the award for Best Actor at the Golden Globes.

So yeah, here are some brief reviews on three highly-touted 2008 (one is technically an '09 release) films: SLUMDOG MILLIONAIRE, THE CURIOUS CASE OF BENJAMIN BUTTON, and GRAN TORINO.

SLUMDOG MILLIONAIRE (2008)

Make fun of me all you want, but you'll have a hard time convincing me that Danny Boyle isn't one of the best Hollywood directors out there. With a knack for fresh takes on genre films accompanied by his trademark dutch tilts and popping palettes, Boyle has made a name for himself as one of the premier directors in the game.

SLUMDOG has generated more buzz and won more awards than just about any other film this season, so it certainly had the burden of high expectations surrounding it. And while SLUMDOG is nothing short of beautiful as a love story, and the narrative is certainly not your run-of-the-mill, point-a-to-point-b romance, its structure is dishearteningly contrived, relying on telling the story in three different places in time, ultimately coming off as too much, and at times, far too ironic for its own good. For a film that's on the fast-track for winning Best Picture, SLUMDOG's choice of narrative structure left me nothing but disappointed.

Don't get me wrong, SLUMDOG is still a good film, mostly because of Danny Boyle's gorgeous visuals and a brilliant take on the classic "root-for-the-underdog" story with some cultural flavor thrown in. While SLUMDOG doesn't really try to be a rags-to-riches film underneath the covers, it certainly ends up being one, just not in the sense of equating money with happiness. After all, Jamal (the lead character) isn't about money. He's about finding his childhood love through perserverance and overcoming of societal restrictions. When he finally gets his chance, you can't help but root for him.

SLUMDOG ends up a slight disappointment, but it's still a feel-good film that's put over-the-top by solid direction and fantastic visuals.

THE CURIOUS CASE OF BENJAMIN BUTTON (2008)

After being somewhat letdown by SLUMDOG MILLIONAIRE, I came into THE CURIOUS CASE OF BENJAMIN BUTTON a little shaky. I like David Fincher and I like his body of work, so the bar was set just as high as it was with Boyle and SLUMDOG MILLIONAIRE. BUTTON proved good, but again, I found myself wanting more.

THE CURIOUS CASE OF BENJAMIN BUTTON is curious indeed, telling the tale of a man born old and ages in reverse. While certainly helped by the F. Scott Fitzgerald novel upon which it is based, BUTTON is movie storytelling at its pinnacle. It's skin deep and mystical but borderline self-indulgent and overlong. Once you get through it though, BUTTON shows itself to be a respectable film helped along by a splendid performance by Brad Pitt, gorgeous lensing by Fincher, and some of the most effective CGI you will ever see outside of popcorn cinema.

BUTTON is a satisfying watch, though it is a bit too tepid and a little too FORREST GUMP 2 for my tastes. Still a nice lookin' film, though.

GRAN TORINO (2009)

I'll admit it. I'm not as familiar with Clint Eastwood's body of work as others. Shoot me.

Needless to say I had high expectations for this film, especially after the buzz it was receiving on the award tour. I'd seen the trailers, and while I'm usually kind of iffy on films portraying gangs and rough kids that are intimidated and stomped around by old men, I must admit that if anyone could pass it off as believeable, it'd be Clint Eastwood.

GRAN TORINO is funny, that's for sure, though if you found the racial slurs of FULL METAL JACKET to be offensive, you probably won't be too keen on Eastwood's choice of monikers in GRAN TORINO. For the film's sake, GRAN TORINO isn't a comedy, nor does it try to build itself around the humor, but instead showing that with the help of some really Asian neighbors, you can free yourself of eighty years of bigotry with the help of one "gook" sidekick.

GRAN TORINO is some moderately deep stuff, and while it's easy to forget the meaning underneath all of the Asian jokes, it returns to the forefront in a resounding finale at the end of the film. And heck, any film that makes the PC (politically correct) crowd look like the sissies that they are is certainly worth my ten bucks.

I'm lumping GRAN TORINO with 2008 releases to create a revised top ten list of 2008:

10. CLOVERFIELD
9. QUANTUM OF SOLACE
8. BURN AFTER READING
7. THE CURIOUS CASE OF BENJAMIN BUTTON
6. SLUMDOG MILLIONAIRE
5. LET THE RIGHT ONE IN
4. FORGETTING SARAH MARSHALL
3. GRAN TORINO
2. THE DARK KNIGHT
1. WALL-E