Right Now: Top 9

I”m going to do this again, without looking at the original list. Let’s see how they compare:

1. Brick
2. The Brothers Bloom
3. Sunshine
4. The Nines
5. Sleuth
6. Collateral
7. The Edge
8. In Bruges
9. Léon (The Professional)

I know a few have changed: The Brothers Bloom wasn’t out last time I made my list, and I don’t think In Bruges or Sleuth were on there last time. I know Man on Fire fell from grace, certainly not an easy choice, but some stuff had to go to make room for the films which have wormed their way into my life.

 

Battle: Los Angeles

I haven’t reviewed a movie in a long, LONG time. Sorry about that.

I’ve seen quite a lot in the interim, just been busy. For that matter, I’ve seen a lot of movies, period. Probably too many.

I have a bad habit of going to see movies on their last night in theaters. That sense of urgency gets me, that, “oh no! I really should see this in theaters!”

That’s why I go to things like the Transformers movies. They’re terrible. We all know this. Even Michael Bay recently admitted the second one was awful. For this reason, they aren’t worth seeing unless it’s in a theater. The robots, explosions, and Megan Fox’s breasts might as well be 40 feet tall, or the movie has no redeeming qualities whatsoever.

This thought process brought me to Battle: Los Angeles last night.

The worst movie I have seen in theaters in probably a decade.

The description I will give to you is the following: it’s like a 7th-grade play version of Black Hawk Down, except, because terrorism is a sensitive subject, they replaced the insurgents with aliens.

The dialogue is as bad, if not worse, than that in Battlefield: Earth (no relation, despite the word similarities and colon).

One- Line Review: You can see it, but I warned you.

Concensus: 12/100.

 

Kick-Ass

I will start by saying that this movie is not for children. It’s not for people who don’t think violence is amusing. It’s not for people who don’t think that… It’s not for everyone.

But it is for me.

I will next say that people who see this movie need to understand how bad you are going to feel for laughing. I will say, there should be nothing funny about seeing a little girl get kicked in the face. But believe me, it is funny. You will laugh. Then you will realize you are a bad person for laughing. But that’s ok. We’re all bad people.

I can’t help but think about the masterpiece that is Michael Haneke’s Funny Games. That movie is essentially about how violence isn’t supposed to be entertaining. Read: SUPPOSED TO BE. Doesn’t mean it isn’t. I found Kick-Ass almost endlessly entertaining. If you enjoy violence in movies or video games, or hell, even sports (what is football, if not a large display of televised violence?), you’ll probably be ok with it.

I need to rant briefly about one thing that did bother me, perhaps more than it should have, and certainly more than it would bother anyone who does not watch more than a reasonable number of movies (as I do). The music. I am of the opinion that original music composed for one movie is off limits to every other movie. Period. That song from Requiem For A Dream (“Lux Aeternal”) essentially ruined The Two Towers. It ruins every preview it is a part of. That song is from Requiem For A Dream, dammit. There was a phase where EVERY preview for EVERY epic used music from Gladiator. Ruined.

John Murphy is a genius, responsible for several of the best original scores of the last decade. Snatch. 28 Days Later. Sunshine. He write music for Danny Boyle (director of the last two of those three). He did music for Kick-Ass. Me=excited. Then, the music in the movie was the theme from 28 Days Later and Sunshine. It’s great music. I loved it here too. But THAT ISN’T FAIR. It unfairly evokes the images of those movies during this one.

Also, there is a build up to a climactic gun battle in a hallway, and the background music is very unmistakably an intro to “Kryptonite” by 3 Doors Down. I was stoked. I haven’t heard that song in years. And it fits! Then, right as it’s about to start, cut to a different song. My guess is they couldn’t get the rights to it, so they had to cut to something else. But still, annoying.

This movie was also quite bipolar. The first half is very reminiscent of Superbad. Not very serious. The second half is just like Shoot ‘Em Up, ridiculous fight choreography and all. But it’s easy to roll with. I didn’t mind.

Finally, my hat is off to Nicholas Cage. A much bigger role than I expected, and very well played. I did not see him coming on this strong.

I’d recommend this movie very highly, but only to certain people. But you know who you are. In fact, if you’re reading this, I bet you already knew whether you want to see this or not. I doubt I changed many minds.

One-line review: One part Superbad, one part Shoot ‘Em Up.

Consensus: 86/100

 

The White Ribbon

For those not aware, I see a lot of movies. Two of the best movies I’ve seen in the last 10 years are by Austrian filmmaker Michael Haneke.

The first is Caché. A French language film that channeled Hitchcock like nothing I’ve ever seen.

The second is Funny Games. The US version especially. Not for everyone, trust me, but a movie with a very strong message that violence shouldn’t be entertaining. It’s hard to see the message through all the violence.

Now comes the German The White Ribbon. Black & White. Subtitled. 2 hours and 24 minutes. Therefore: not for everybody. Honestly, this one didn’t really grab me the way I thought it would. It won the Palm d’Or at Cannes last year. It was also the only pick for the Oscars I didn’t get right. From what I hear, that shouldn’t have happened (it should have won).

I honestly had difficulty getting into it. It’s quite slow, and honestly, not suspenseful at all. I would love to refer to Haneke as the master of suspense for his other films, but this one was quite flat. That being said, it’s very eloquent. Extreme patience and meticulous composition remind me why Haneke is so damn good. Nothing is rushed. This movie takes its time. Maybe it wasn’t upbeat enough for me. But, I appreciate the near perfection of its craftsmanship. My advice? Go rent Caché, or Funny Games (preferably both).

One-line review: Very well done, but don’t watch it if you’re tired.

Consensus: 75/100

 

Shutter Island

Astounding. A little predictable, coming from someone who sees way too many movies, but it was so thrilling that I didn’t even mind. A little long, but incredibly captivating. When the camera turned on what appeared to be the final shot, I actually whispered, “stop” to the cameraman. And he did. The cinematography may have been the best in a Scorsese film to date, certainly up there with Gangs of New York. The plot has been gathering quite a few comparisons to another film of his, Bringing Out The Dead, and I can see it, but, if pressed, I would actually compare it to The Shining. I couldn’t stop thinking of it. The paranoia. The claustrophobia. It was harrowing.

DiCaprio was essentially perfect for his role. I could sense that he played this in a way not many could. I imagine Dennis Lehane had someone like him in mind when he wrote the novel. For those of you who don’t know, Lehane is becoming a new “it” novelist in the film industry. He wrote Mystic River. He wrote Gone Baby Gone. The latter is one of the most under-rated movies of the oughts.

I am of the opinion that you can, in many case, tell the quality of a movie based on who plays the minor parts. If many of the smaller roles are played by top actors, it says that the project was so good that people didn’t care how big their part was; they just wanted to be part of it. The Hurt Locker is a good example of this. Shutter Island is no different. Lesser appearances by Mark Ruffalo, one of my favorites. Ben Kingsley. Michelle Williams. Emily Mortimer. Max Von Sydow. Jackie Earl Haley. Ted Levine. The list goes on.

In short, most everything about this movie is done right. I really, really enjoyed it.

One-line review: Martin Scorsese does The Shining. Masterful.

Consensus: 88/100

 

Sherlock Holmes

This movie is excellent. Much more so than the other reviews of it I’ve read. Perhaps it’s too smart for the average viewer. Not that I would expect less from Guy Ritchie. Snatch is one the smartest movies I’ve seen, and the lesser known (and more recent) Revolver is even more so. This movie is very smart. In places, the dialogue moves quite quickly. Those not comfortable with rapid Brit-speak may find this difficult, but that serves simply as a reason to go again. A British movie that came out earlier this year, called In The Loop, may have suffered from this. I intend to buy that movie and watch it several times with subtitles until I understand the whole thing, because it honestly may be one of the funniest movies of the decade. I’m not sure. But I will say that as obsessed as America is with faster cars, faster internet, faster everything, we speak our version of English more slowly than just about every other culture speaks their language on the planet.

Which brings us back to Holmes. The dialogue is fast and clever. The action is equally as fast and equally as clever. The plot is of the most excellent sort. The acting was very good, better than that even. Robert Downey Jr. continues to astonish, this time immersing himself in a British role very naturally. Jude Law has less of a difficult time with the whole British thing, but I was quite impressed at how well he played a supporting role. It is interesting to think that three years ago, this movie would have been cast in reverse, with Law as Holmes and Downey Jr. as Watson. It might not have worked as well. I think it took time for Robert Downey Jr. to become a great actor again. And he is. He is an almost singular talent in our era, funny, serious, charismatic. He does voice-over, he tells a story without words at all. Not an award-winning role by any means, but a powerful one.

One-line review: An incredible holiday movie, highly recommended.

Consensus: 85/100

 

Avatar

With all the hype, I’ll keep this one as brief as I can.

I went to this expecting an experience similar to the second Transformers movie. You go to a movie like that in theaters because, even though everybody knows it’s going to be terrible, if you’re going to see giant robots blow each other up (and we all will see that movie eventually), you might as well see it on as large of a screen as possible, so as to be at least a little amazed. That is to say, if the first time you see it is on a small screen, it’s barely even entertaining. How much does a movie like Independence Day lose from a big screen to a small one? It’s loses most of its wonder and astonishment, and for most of these kinds of movies, that’s really all they have going for them.

So I expected my one-sentence review to be “terrible movie, looks pretty”. I will start by commenting on just how pretty it looks. It’s gorgeous. CGI has reached a point where with enough of a budget (this one and King Kong come to mind), you can manufacture reality, or whatever version of reality you like. In addition, the 3-D is a nice touch. I have seen a few things in this new 3-d, and don’t let it fool you as a gimmick. It’s not stuff-jumping-out-of-the-screen 3-D like the days of old. They edit the film (I believe they simply throw different depths into different focal lengths) to give the extra dimension to it. That is, when you look down a hallway, you actually feel like you are looking down it, and not at a 2-D projection of a hallway. It’s nice. I realize just how far the technology has come because I was guilty of TWICE swatting at the air in front of my face to clear dust. It was in the movie.

So now, the story. It’s great. James Cameron blew my mind. He made a gorgeous movie that was excellent. It was well written, well acted, well directed. I haven’t seen Sigourney Weaver act this well in a very long time (Imaginary Heroes was very good, but not really because of her).

This movie, more than almost any other I have seen in a while, is a theatrical must-see.

One-line review: Go see it, and go see it in 3-D.

Consensus: 87/100

 

The Road

This movie was a let-down. It’s alright, but barely. It doesn’t really go anywhere, they never explain why it’s the apocalypse, and it drags. Though, I do suppose that’s much what the apocalypse would actually be like. Maybe that’s what they were going for.

The cinematography is nice, and the acting is good (I will say, the little boy does quite a good job). I appreciate good cameos, great actors that are ok with very small parts (of which my pick for Best Picture this year, The Hurt Locker, has at every single turn). A good debut from a new director. But after all the underground hype for this one, all the copies of the book stuffing the inside of my local Borders, I expected a lot more. I would honestly only recommend this movie to serious cinephiles.

One-line review: A post-apocalyptic thriller with no thrills and not much apocalypse.

Consensus: 55/100

 

Invictus

I read a review of this one that called it something along the lines of “a great rugby movie, an ok Nelson Mandela biopic”. I would be hard pressed to think of many things more backwards. The rugby is pretty good. Entertaining, exciting, etc. That being said, this movie is NOT about rugby. Rugby is the backdrop; it would be like saying that Grey’s Anatomy is about medicine. This movie is about Mandela, and the end of apartheid in South Africa. This is a true cinematic achievement in that the right actor was alive at the right time to play the right person. It’s a very happy coincidence, for I fear that this movie would never work in another time, place, or with another person.

That being said, the movie is pretty good. Not excellent, but pretty good. The acting is tremendous. Morgan Freeman is tremendous. Matt Damon is pretty good. He holds his own against Freeman, but I would say barely so. Unfortunately, I can think of an actor better suited to play the role, and even more unfortunately, that actor is dead. Everything in Damon’s performance screams Heath Ledger. His accent, his walk, his demeanor. Everything. It is almost as if Clint Eastwood said “act just like Heath Ledger would have”. To his credit, he does. I like Matt Damon a lot, and he certainly seems to be channeling Ledger quite well, but I hate knowing that he would likely not have been cast a few years ago. But alas, as I said, this movie might not have worked a few years ago, leaving us in a bizarre quandary.

This is definitely not my favorite Clint Eastwood movie (that would be Gran Torino). It is about as good as Million Dollar Baby. In 2004, this movie would have trounced every other at the Academy Awards (meaning people would have rioted if Crash had pulled off an upset). This year, not so much. The competition’s too good, and this movie is too… ok. If you like Clint Eastwood, you’ll like it. Hell, you’ll probably all like it. But don’t be too surprised if it goes a bit quietly into the good night.

One-line review: Entertaining and endearing, and an enjoyable viewing.

Consensus: 75/100

 

Where The Wild Things Are

This movie was very good. The cinematography was gorgeous, the acting was excellent. The voice talents? That list was epic. I cannot believe the cast Spike Jonze pulled together. Mark Ruffalo has two lines, tops. TWO. That’s absurd. I love it. And the effects might have been some of the best I have ever seen. Seriously, I could not have imagined they’d look that good.

That being said, I understand all the negative reviews, and I will tell you why. This movie, and this story, touch on a very large number of extremely dark themes concerning family, imagination, etc. But by touch on, I mean it’s obvious that they could explore it and don’t. But what should be equally obvious is that they can’t. It’s a children’s story. No child is ever going to follow a story with the exploration of any of those themes. The best you can hope for is the following moral: No matter how at home a place may seem, no matter how good things can be, every family has their troubles, and so you are best off making your way back home. That’s the point of the entire story. It can’t afford to delve into the myriad other lessons it admits. Yikes, I’ll stick with pretentious sentences for 400.

As an adult, as a moviegoer, I can say that this movie left me wanting a little more. But, I am smart enough to know that I can’t have it. The story is perfectly executed. In the words of a friend, “I’m really happy this movie didn’t kill a part of my childhood”. Spike Jonze and Dave Eggers turned a 10-sentence story into a wonderfully rich full-length. Karen O’s voice, while extremely annoying, was surprisingly fitting to the score (she co-wrote the score while her band, the Yeah Yeah Yeahs, was busy destroying the notion of decent music). And I have to mention Spike Jonze’s filming style. Very well-constructed while being refreshingly haphazard. It looked like a kid would have shot it, but a kid who knows an absurd amount about composition and fluency.

A word to the wise: don’t take your children. This movie, though it is based on a children’s story, is not a children’s movie. I never thought I’d use the phrase “hard PG”, but that’s what this is. I honestly would not have been opposed to a PG-13 rating. The target audience is really college-age and above, people who’ve not only read the story, but are also old enough to understand a fantasy when they see one.

One-line review: A kid’s movie for adults, not kids. Dark and endearing.

Consensus: 78/100