“How to Train Your Dragon” didn’t even make my radar when it came out. Then, one of my bffs called me and said, “Candy, you may as well just go buy this movie, because you’re going to love it.”
I’m leery of buying movies I’ve never seen before (a recent “Hellboy” misadventure comes to mind), but I did add it to my Netflix queu. She was right: I may as well have just bought it.
Maybe it’s because I love, and always have, stories dealing with magic and dragons and long-lost ages where people spent more time being brave than whining about their paycheck. This even adds in a little Viking culture.
Meet Hiccup (Jay Baruchel), the characteristic odd-teen-out, who just wants to kill a dragon and be like everyone else. Plus, he figures killing a dragon is the only way to impress his super macho father, Stoick (Gerard Butler), who just also happens to be leader of the Berk Vikings.
It might even get the old smith and dragon slayer Gobber (Craig Ferguson) off his back, just for a little while.
See, dragons and Vikings don’t get along. Dragons terrorize the village of Berk, which is pretty old but has all new houses. Vikings, as we know, are too hearty to let a little thing like constant terror and death at the hands of fire-breathing dragons scare them away from the craggy, harsh part of the world they call home. (Hiccup’s description of a barren landscape where it snows 9 months out of the year and hails the remaining three bears a strong resemblance to several states in the North Central region of this country.)
So, with a crazy invention of his own making, Hiccup manages to bring down the most fearsome of the dragons that terrorize his people: the Night Fury. But once he sees it, he can’t bring himself to follow the village’s “kill on sight” mantra. He releases the dragon, which in turn pays it forward by not killing Hiccup before disappearing.
But Hiccup and the dragon cross paths again, and form an unlikely friendship. Through Toothless, the aptly named dragon, Hiccup discovers that dragons don’t terrorize Berk just for the fun of it – there’s a darker, and much wartier, purpose at work.
Of course, Hiccup can’t tell his dad. Or Gobber. Or any of his peers in “dragon slaying school.” Then he faces his moment of truth, when he must choose to either kill a dragon in front of the villagers and earn their acceptance, or walk away and face something much scarier than even dragons: being told by people you care about that you don’t belong.
Though I’m still a traditional animation snob, this film looks fantastic. Toothless is cute, funny, and superbly expressive. He made me laugh out loud on more than one occasion.
Yes, it’s somewhat predictable. No, I don’t understand why the Vikings speak English with a variety of Scottish and Midwestern accents. In an animated film about fire-breathing dragons, however, it’s not especially hard for me to suspend my expectations of what is or is not realistic.
All I know is that this film reaffirmed my desire to have my own flying dragon to ride. So I don’t care what you say, Roger Ebert. I’m buying this movie.
Thursday, November 11, 2010
'Life as We Know It'
Katherine Heigl plays a successful, uptight, but romantically-minded single female who meets a successful, carefree, somewhat self-centered man (I would even go so far as to say a man whore) and is instantly repulsed.
No, this isn’t “The Ugly Truth.” At least, not quite. Different names, scenery, different leading man…but you’ve seen this movie before: Two people who hate each other are thrown into a situation where they’re forced to spend lots of time together and realize that they actually don’t hate each other.
Holly (Heigl) is best friends with Alison (Christina Hendricks). Alison is married to Peter (Hayes MacArthur). Peter is best friends with Eric Messer, aka Messer (Josh Duhamel). In the opening scene, a pre-marriage Alison and Peter decide to set up their best friends on a blind date with each other.
Messer arrives an hour late and acts like a tool – even setting up a date with another woman while in the car with Holly – establishing himself as the carefree playboy. Holly gets snippy and refuses to get on Messer’s motorcycle, establishing herself as the uptight shrew. They decide to not finish the date.
Rather than being put off by this, Alison and Peter get married, have a baby, and make Holly and Messer the godfather of their daughter, Sophie (played by three equally adorable little girls).
Then we watch these grown ups’ lives revolve around christenings and birthday parties for Sophie’s first year of life. I’ve never really understood why you’d have 45 of your closest friends over for your baby’s birthday, but I suppose it was necessary to introduce the obligatory “wacky” set of neighborhood players who do little for the film, other than provide a few marginal laughs and remind us all why it’s ok to not be best friends with half the neighborhood.
Then tragedy strikes, and Alison and Peter bequeath their most prized possession – Sophie – to their two best friends. The condition is that Holly and Messer must move in together, in Alison and Peter’s house, and raise Sophie together.
Holly has to adjust her control issues to accommodate a baby who doesn’t always sleep or eat exactly as she should. Messer has to learn what it’s like to actually have any sort of a schedule, rather than coming and going as he pleases. Sophie has to endure two people who somehow managed to reach adulthood without knowing how to change diapers or identify baby food. It’s less than ideal, but we all make sacrifices.
They don’t think they can do it. Their case worker doesn’t think they can do it. The neighbors have bets on how soon Holly and Messer will “do it.” I’m guessing you know what happens.
Despite being incredibly predictable, it’s still watchable. Heigl reprises the quirkly control freak role, doing it as well as she always does, and Duhamel is able to pull off annoying and charming at the same time. There are some laugh-out-loud moments, several cutesie montages and one super cute baby.
Thank god they’re both super attractive, because otherwise the whole operation might have been a bust – and then what would have become of poor Sophie?
No, this isn’t “The Ugly Truth.” At least, not quite. Different names, scenery, different leading man…but you’ve seen this movie before: Two people who hate each other are thrown into a situation where they’re forced to spend lots of time together and realize that they actually don’t hate each other.
Holly (Heigl) is best friends with Alison (Christina Hendricks). Alison is married to Peter (Hayes MacArthur). Peter is best friends with Eric Messer, aka Messer (Josh Duhamel). In the opening scene, a pre-marriage Alison and Peter decide to set up their best friends on a blind date with each other.
Messer arrives an hour late and acts like a tool – even setting up a date with another woman while in the car with Holly – establishing himself as the carefree playboy. Holly gets snippy and refuses to get on Messer’s motorcycle, establishing herself as the uptight shrew. They decide to not finish the date.
Rather than being put off by this, Alison and Peter get married, have a baby, and make Holly and Messer the godfather of their daughter, Sophie (played by three equally adorable little girls).
Then we watch these grown ups’ lives revolve around christenings and birthday parties for Sophie’s first year of life. I’ve never really understood why you’d have 45 of your closest friends over for your baby’s birthday, but I suppose it was necessary to introduce the obligatory “wacky” set of neighborhood players who do little for the film, other than provide a few marginal laughs and remind us all why it’s ok to not be best friends with half the neighborhood.
Then tragedy strikes, and Alison and Peter bequeath their most prized possession – Sophie – to their two best friends. The condition is that Holly and Messer must move in together, in Alison and Peter’s house, and raise Sophie together.
Holly has to adjust her control issues to accommodate a baby who doesn’t always sleep or eat exactly as she should. Messer has to learn what it’s like to actually have any sort of a schedule, rather than coming and going as he pleases. Sophie has to endure two people who somehow managed to reach adulthood without knowing how to change diapers or identify baby food. It’s less than ideal, but we all make sacrifices.
They don’t think they can do it. Their case worker doesn’t think they can do it. The neighbors have bets on how soon Holly and Messer will “do it.” I’m guessing you know what happens.
Despite being incredibly predictable, it’s still watchable. Heigl reprises the quirkly control freak role, doing it as well as she always does, and Duhamel is able to pull off annoying and charming at the same time. There are some laugh-out-loud moments, several cutesie montages and one super cute baby.
Thank god they’re both super attractive, because otherwise the whole operation might have been a bust – and then what would have become of poor Sophie?
Sunday, September 26, 2010
MST3K Revisited...finally
Ok, at long last, here is my follow-up. From the men who brought you Mystery Science Theater: 3000, comes this wonderful website: http://www.rifftrax.com/
Learn it, live it, love it. Instead of doing what they used to do, which is take old, horrible B movies to mock, they record riffs of new, popular movies. I've only seen three thus far, but all three were worth the money. They are:
1. Twilight
2. Twilight: New Moon
3. Reign of Fire
I didn't know there were other people out there who could actually hate the Twilight franchise more than my college housemates and me, but these guys do. And it's hilarious. I'm making a goal to watch the 'Avatar' one very, very soon.
Learn it, live it, love it. Instead of doing what they used to do, which is take old, horrible B movies to mock, they record riffs of new, popular movies. I've only seen three thus far, but all three were worth the money. They are:
1. Twilight
2. Twilight: New Moon
3. Reign of Fire
I didn't know there were other people out there who could actually hate the Twilight franchise more than my college housemates and me, but these guys do. And it's hilarious. I'm making a goal to watch the 'Avatar' one very, very soon.
Monday, September 6, 2010
Recommendations!
I don't know exactly how to do a 'review' of MST3K riffs, but I have to share the joy. If you love satire, laughing at bad movies, and are SUPER excited about the upcoming Paul Walker/Haydn Christenson collaboration and haven't discovered the world of Mystery Science Theater 300, please. Stop what you're doing (except finish this post), and go find some.
Premise: a man gets kidnapped and taken into space, where he and his two robot friends are subjected to torture and forced to watch incredibly awful B-type movies. So, you watch the movie along with them as they proceed to mock it. Usually very well.
Of the originals, here are my top 5 (if I miss someone's favorite, please chime in):
5. MST3K: The Movie - Maybe not the snappiest MST3K fare, but the fact that I can still remember a few key quotes almost 6 years after watching it brings it onto my list.
4. Manos: The Hands of Fate - It's one of the slower MST3K films, but funny nonetheless.
3. Pod People - "It's called evil, kid." 'Nuff said.
2. Boggy Creek II: And the Legend Continues - Hot pants and Sasquatch? I think that's a yes!
1. Deathstalker and the Warriors from Hell - Highly quotable, utterly hilarious: it's the boys at their satirical best. I've seen it probably 20 times, and it never gets old.
Now, the geniuses that brought us MST3K have started doing new movies. More on that later.
Premise: a man gets kidnapped and taken into space, where he and his two robot friends are subjected to torture and forced to watch incredibly awful B-type movies. So, you watch the movie along with them as they proceed to mock it. Usually very well.
Of the originals, here are my top 5 (if I miss someone's favorite, please chime in):
5. MST3K: The Movie - Maybe not the snappiest MST3K fare, but the fact that I can still remember a few key quotes almost 6 years after watching it brings it onto my list.
4. Manos: The Hands of Fate - It's one of the slower MST3K films, but funny nonetheless.
3. Pod People - "It's called evil, kid." 'Nuff said.
2. Boggy Creek II: And the Legend Continues - Hot pants and Sasquatch? I think that's a yes!
1. Deathstalker and the Warriors from Hell - Highly quotable, utterly hilarious: it's the boys at their satirical best. I've seen it probably 20 times, and it never gets old.
Now, the geniuses that brought us MST3K have started doing new movies. More on that later.
Thursday, July 29, 2010
Inception
It seems like most blockbusters don't live up to their own expectations.
Inception does.
Brought to us by the man who wrote and directed "Memento," "The Prestige," and most recently "The Dark Knight," "Inception" is another achievement in originality and story telling.
Leonardo DiCaprio stars as Cobb, who specializes in a new technology that allows him to enter peoples' dreams to steal valuable information from their manipulated subconscious.
Cobb and Co. botch their latest assignment, but are offered a reprieve of sorts by a powerful business man who wants them to reverse their specialty: instead of stealing from someone's subconscious, they are to plant an idea.
Cobb, though distrustful of the notion, takes the job on the premise that this last job will allow him to return, at last, to his children in the States.
This job requires going deep into the target's subconscious – dreams within dreams within dreams - so they set about finding a team that can hack it.
Like any heist movie, getting to know the team is half the fun. The craziness that follows is the other half.
Like "Memento," the film plays with time and reality, making us question just which we are witnessing.
And like "The Dark Knight," Nolan shows that innovative and thrilling action sequences can indeed go hand-in-hand.
(Were there moments that reminded me of "The Matrix"? Yes. But in a good way.)
It's the kind of film you get all wrapped up in plot and character.
DiCaprio is convincing as the intelligent though haunted Cobb, and Joseph Gordan-Levitt easily switches from his usual rom-com self to a smart action star.
The weakest part of the film is a basic unanswered question: why can't Cobb's kids join him in France, where his father (Michael Caine) also lives and teaches?
No matter. They can't, so Cobb must do what he does.
Want to know more?
One of my friends said it best: "I walked away from the moving understanding what happened, however, I probably couldn't explain it to another person. Go. You'll love it."
Inception does.
Brought to us by the man who wrote and directed "Memento," "The Prestige," and most recently "The Dark Knight," "Inception" is another achievement in originality and story telling.
Leonardo DiCaprio stars as Cobb, who specializes in a new technology that allows him to enter peoples' dreams to steal valuable information from their manipulated subconscious.
Cobb and Co. botch their latest assignment, but are offered a reprieve of sorts by a powerful business man who wants them to reverse their specialty: instead of stealing from someone's subconscious, they are to plant an idea.
Cobb, though distrustful of the notion, takes the job on the premise that this last job will allow him to return, at last, to his children in the States.
This job requires going deep into the target's subconscious – dreams within dreams within dreams - so they set about finding a team that can hack it.
Like any heist movie, getting to know the team is half the fun. The craziness that follows is the other half.
Like "Memento," the film plays with time and reality, making us question just which we are witnessing.
And like "The Dark Knight," Nolan shows that innovative and thrilling action sequences can indeed go hand-in-hand.
(Were there moments that reminded me of "The Matrix"? Yes. But in a good way.)
It's the kind of film you get all wrapped up in plot and character.
DiCaprio is convincing as the intelligent though haunted Cobb, and Joseph Gordan-Levitt easily switches from his usual rom-com self to a smart action star.
The weakest part of the film is a basic unanswered question: why can't Cobb's kids join him in France, where his father (Michael Caine) also lives and teaches?
No matter. They can't, so Cobb must do what he does.
Want to know more?
One of my friends said it best: "I walked away from the moving understanding what happened, however, I probably couldn't explain it to another person. Go. You'll love it."
Tuesday, July 20, 2010
Toy Story 3
"To infinity, and beyond!"
"The Claw, it moves!"
"That's not flying, it's falling with style."
For fans of the franchise, these quotes are easily recognizable — some of the more memorable moments from the one that started it all: Toy Story.
(Proof: I haven't seen the movie in years, and I remembered those easily. Say those lines to anyone in my age bracket, and you'll get an immediate follow-up line.)
I could talk about how ground-breaking it was, how it started one of the most acclaimed and profitable relationships in showbiz (Disney/Pixar), etc.
But I won't.
Instead I'd like to focus on how these films, and the newest one in particular, managed to follow an entire generation through its development.
I remember going to see the original Toy Story as a little girl, not much older than Andy, the boy whose toys get into so much trouble.
The first film worked for me because it brought to life what I (and every other child) was so sure of – toys (and animals, for that matter) are alive. They can talk. They really can, they just won't while humans are around.
The second film, though less memorable, did what every good sequel does by bringing back all the original staple characters and throwing them together with some new fun faces.
Then comes the third film, making Toy Story yet another member of the Trilogy club.
I'm not generally a huge fan of sequels, prequels or tri-quels, especially not when they come 15 years later.
However, that very gap is what made this film's central theme so potent for me and my friends.
It's the same basic concept as before: Toys get separated from Andy, Toys think Andy doesn't love them anymore, Toys encounter danger, destruction and mayhem as they try to get home.
Andy is 18 now, and getting ready to go to college. His mom gives him three choices for the toys: to the attic, to college or in the trash.
The toys Andy intends to send to the attic get mistaken for trash, and sent to a "retirement home" for old, unwanted toys. They realize there's been a mistake, and Woody, ever loyal, leads the way home.
It's probably less original than the first, maybe even the second. And, the villains aren't as creepy (few things can match Sid's House of Horrors from the first film).
But at the center of the film is a chord of a coming-of-age story, of toys who no longer come alive for Andy (though they want to).
Andy has to decide whether or not to hold on to the toys and what they represent, or to let them go.
This film marks the end of a franchise, and in a way, the end of an era.
Whether or not it's a happy ending I guess is up to you.
"The Claw, it moves!"
"That's not flying, it's falling with style."
For fans of the franchise, these quotes are easily recognizable — some of the more memorable moments from the one that started it all: Toy Story.
(Proof: I haven't seen the movie in years, and I remembered those easily. Say those lines to anyone in my age bracket, and you'll get an immediate follow-up line.)
I could talk about how ground-breaking it was, how it started one of the most acclaimed and profitable relationships in showbiz (Disney/Pixar), etc.
But I won't.
Instead I'd like to focus on how these films, and the newest one in particular, managed to follow an entire generation through its development.
I remember going to see the original Toy Story as a little girl, not much older than Andy, the boy whose toys get into so much trouble.
The first film worked for me because it brought to life what I (and every other child) was so sure of – toys (and animals, for that matter) are alive. They can talk. They really can, they just won't while humans are around.
The second film, though less memorable, did what every good sequel does by bringing back all the original staple characters and throwing them together with some new fun faces.
Then comes the third film, making Toy Story yet another member of the Trilogy club.
I'm not generally a huge fan of sequels, prequels or tri-quels, especially not when they come 15 years later.
However, that very gap is what made this film's central theme so potent for me and my friends.
It's the same basic concept as before: Toys get separated from Andy, Toys think Andy doesn't love them anymore, Toys encounter danger, destruction and mayhem as they try to get home.
Andy is 18 now, and getting ready to go to college. His mom gives him three choices for the toys: to the attic, to college or in the trash.
The toys Andy intends to send to the attic get mistaken for trash, and sent to a "retirement home" for old, unwanted toys. They realize there's been a mistake, and Woody, ever loyal, leads the way home.
It's probably less original than the first, maybe even the second. And, the villains aren't as creepy (few things can match Sid's House of Horrors from the first film).
But at the center of the film is a chord of a coming-of-age story, of toys who no longer come alive for Andy (though they want to).
Andy has to decide whether or not to hold on to the toys and what they represent, or to let them go.
This film marks the end of a franchise, and in a way, the end of an era.
Whether or not it's a happy ending I guess is up to you.
Tuesday, March 23, 2010
‘Reel’ Life
"Percy Jackson & the Olympians: The Lightning Thief"
Way before Batman and Spidey donned their studly suits of spandex, ancient Greece had its own pantheon of comic book characters. Except those characters were gods, and their ‘superpowers’ varied from Zeus’ awesome lightening bolt to Hermes’ messenger duties.
So, the movie starts with the premise that these gods are still alive and well and still ruling the world as ineptly as ever. We’re introduced to Poseidon and Zeus, where we discover that Zeus is all bent out of shape because someone stole his lightening bolt.
You’d think that the most powerful god would keep his most powerful weapon someplace more secure, but hey, even the gods overlook things from time to time.
Zeus thinks Poseidon’s son stole it, and threatens war if it is not returned by the Summer Solstice, which naturally, is only a couple of weeks away.
Enter Percy Jackson. An average teenager, who hates high school because he has ADHD and dyslexia. He’s really only happy when he’s underwater – usually for several minutes at a time.
Come to find out, Percy is actually the demi-god son of Poseidon. Even better, Percy’s best friend is actually a satyr. He soon makes friends with Annabeth, the appropriately fierce daughter of Athena.
Ok, I’m a sucker for Greek mythology (always have been), so the movie didn’t have to work very hard to hold my attention.
The movie does a good job of catering to its target audience – adolescents.
It was serious without being too heavy, humorous without being too ridiculous...usually.
Still, at times it seemed the filmmakers were too distracted with their special effects to pay attention to logistics, and hoped that we would be too.
Well. Sorry. I have questions.
Like, how could three teenagers with no jobs afford to drive all over the United States?
How did they never get chased by the cops, especially once one of them had been declared missing?
How is Percy suddenly able to control all of his powers after one day of training?
Did Percy have any inkling of his powers, other than being able to hold his breath longer than the Navy Seals? Did he ever accidentally make the faucet explode when he was angry? Did he ever turn water into a trident and shoot it at his mother when she tried to make him take his vitamins?
What did Hermes use to fly before trendy basketball shoes started coming with a “wings-on” option?
Why is the entrance to Mt. Olympus, traditionally the highest mountain in Greece, located at the top of the Empire State Building?
And why, oh why, do the Greek gods who are now apparently based out of America speak English with a British accent? It probably isn’t out of the question to assume that gods could easily learn modern English, but then why any accent at all? They studied at Cambridge before relocating to NYC?
Kids watching will not notice, or care about those things, but they distracted me. Which is probably just as well, because there were a few cheesed out moments that I needed to be distracted from.
Still, it was, for the most part, entertaining. Logan Lerman plays the parts of angry teen and heroic youth equally well, and Uma Thurman plays Medusa as only she could.
I was even impressed that for once, instead of romanticizing the world of the gods, the film acknowledges what most Greek stories showcase those deities to be: spoiled children who do little but compete with each other and fulfill their own desires.
Maybe their kids will do better – or maybe not. Watch the film and you can decide.
Director: Chris Columbus
Writers: Rick Riordan (novel)
Craig Titley (screenplay)
Characters:
Percy Jackson – Logan Lermen
Grover – Brandon T. Jackson
Annabeth – Alexandra Daddario
Luke – Jake Abel
Zeus – Sean Bean
Mr. Brunner / Chiron – Pierce Brosnan
Hades – Steve Coogan
Persephone – Rosario Dawson
Athena – Melina Kanakaredes
Sally Jackson – Catherine Keener
Poseidon – Kevin McKidd
Medusa – Uma Thurman
Rating: PG for “action violence and peril, some scary images and suggestive material, and mild language.”
Way before Batman and Spidey donned their studly suits of spandex, ancient Greece had its own pantheon of comic book characters. Except those characters were gods, and their ‘superpowers’ varied from Zeus’ awesome lightening bolt to Hermes’ messenger duties.
So, the movie starts with the premise that these gods are still alive and well and still ruling the world as ineptly as ever. We’re introduced to Poseidon and Zeus, where we discover that Zeus is all bent out of shape because someone stole his lightening bolt.
You’d think that the most powerful god would keep his most powerful weapon someplace more secure, but hey, even the gods overlook things from time to time.
Zeus thinks Poseidon’s son stole it, and threatens war if it is not returned by the Summer Solstice, which naturally, is only a couple of weeks away.
Enter Percy Jackson. An average teenager, who hates high school because he has ADHD and dyslexia. He’s really only happy when he’s underwater – usually for several minutes at a time.
Come to find out, Percy is actually the demi-god son of Poseidon. Even better, Percy’s best friend is actually a satyr. He soon makes friends with Annabeth, the appropriately fierce daughter of Athena.
Ok, I’m a sucker for Greek mythology (always have been), so the movie didn’t have to work very hard to hold my attention.
The movie does a good job of catering to its target audience – adolescents.
It was serious without being too heavy, humorous without being too ridiculous...usually.
Still, at times it seemed the filmmakers were too distracted with their special effects to pay attention to logistics, and hoped that we would be too.
Well. Sorry. I have questions.
Like, how could three teenagers with no jobs afford to drive all over the United States?
How did they never get chased by the cops, especially once one of them had been declared missing?
How is Percy suddenly able to control all of his powers after one day of training?
Did Percy have any inkling of his powers, other than being able to hold his breath longer than the Navy Seals? Did he ever accidentally make the faucet explode when he was angry? Did he ever turn water into a trident and shoot it at his mother when she tried to make him take his vitamins?
What did Hermes use to fly before trendy basketball shoes started coming with a “wings-on” option?
Why is the entrance to Mt. Olympus, traditionally the highest mountain in Greece, located at the top of the Empire State Building?
And why, oh why, do the Greek gods who are now apparently based out of America speak English with a British accent? It probably isn’t out of the question to assume that gods could easily learn modern English, but then why any accent at all? They studied at Cambridge before relocating to NYC?
Kids watching will not notice, or care about those things, but they distracted me. Which is probably just as well, because there were a few cheesed out moments that I needed to be distracted from.
Still, it was, for the most part, entertaining. Logan Lerman plays the parts of angry teen and heroic youth equally well, and Uma Thurman plays Medusa as only she could.
I was even impressed that for once, instead of romanticizing the world of the gods, the film acknowledges what most Greek stories showcase those deities to be: spoiled children who do little but compete with each other and fulfill their own desires.
Maybe their kids will do better – or maybe not. Watch the film and you can decide.
Director: Chris Columbus
Writers: Rick Riordan (novel)
Craig Titley (screenplay)
Characters:
Percy Jackson – Logan Lermen
Grover – Brandon T. Jackson
Annabeth – Alexandra Daddario
Luke – Jake Abel
Zeus – Sean Bean
Mr. Brunner / Chiron – Pierce Brosnan
Hades – Steve Coogan
Persephone – Rosario Dawson
Athena – Melina Kanakaredes
Sally Jackson – Catherine Keener
Poseidon – Kevin McKidd
Medusa – Uma Thurman
Rating: PG for “action violence and peril, some scary images and suggestive material, and mild language.”
Friday, March 5, 2010
2010 Oscar Predictions
I have not seen enough of this year's contenders to make fully accurate or informed predictions, but here's my best guess for the big categories:
Best Supporting Actress: Mo'Nique of 'Precious,' because Oprah endorsed her
Best Supporting Actor: Christopher Wantz of 'Inglorious Basterds'
Best Actress: Sandra Bullock of 'The Blindside' because she's one of Hollywood's highest paids and has never even been nominated before
Best Actor: Honestly do not know.
Best Picture: Unfortunately, I think 'Avatar' will take over this and almost every other category
Best Animated: 'Up' - it's the most "grown-up" film Disney/Pixar has made yet, but still has the magic we need from them. I've not seen "The Princess and the Frog," but it doesn't seem quite on par with Disney's past animation masterpieces ("Beauty and the Beast, Aladdin, The Lion King, etc.)
*Note: I'd just like to express my appreciation that "I See You" was not nominated for best original song - it's not original, and it's certainly not the best. I'm glad the Academy didn't cave to popularity.
Otherwise, you're on your own - your guess is as good as mine. I haven't seen the majority of this year's contenders, but I don't have to watch a movie to know how popular it is. So I'm curious to see if I'm right. If I am, then it basically means that the Oscars have become nothing more than Homecoming/Prom night for Hollywood - popularity contests.
If I'm wrong, it will be both a relief and a challenge for me to be more informed next year.
Best Supporting Actress: Mo'Nique of 'Precious,' because Oprah endorsed her
Best Supporting Actor: Christopher Wantz of 'Inglorious Basterds'
Best Actress: Sandra Bullock of 'The Blindside' because she's one of Hollywood's highest paids and has never even been nominated before
Best Actor: Honestly do not know.
Best Picture: Unfortunately, I think 'Avatar' will take over this and almost every other category
Best Animated: 'Up' - it's the most "grown-up" film Disney/Pixar has made yet, but still has the magic we need from them. I've not seen "The Princess and the Frog," but it doesn't seem quite on par with Disney's past animation masterpieces ("Beauty and the Beast, Aladdin, The Lion King, etc.)
*Note: I'd just like to express my appreciation that "I See You" was not nominated for best original song - it's not original, and it's certainly not the best. I'm glad the Academy didn't cave to popularity.
Otherwise, you're on your own - your guess is as good as mine. I haven't seen the majority of this year's contenders, but I don't have to watch a movie to know how popular it is. So I'm curious to see if I'm right. If I am, then it basically means that the Oscars have become nothing more than Homecoming/Prom night for Hollywood - popularity contests.
If I'm wrong, it will be both a relief and a challenge for me to be more informed next year.
2010 Oscar Nominations
BEST PICTURE
"Avatar"
"The Blind Side"
"District 9"
"An Education"
"The Hurt Locker"
"Inglourious Basterds"
"Precious"
"A Serious Man"
"Up"
"Up in the Air"
ACTRESS IN A SUPPORTING ROLE
Penelope Cruz, "Nine"
Vera Farmiga, "Up in the Air"
Maggie Gyllenhaal, "Crazy Heart"
Anna Kendrick, "Up in the Air"
Mo'Nique, "Precious"
ACTOR IN A SUPPORTING ROLE
Matt Damon, "Invictus"
Woody Harrelson, "The Messenger"
Christopher Plummer, "The Last Station"
Stanley Tucci, "The Lovely Bones"
Christoph Waltz, "Inglourious Basterds"
ACTRESS IN A LEADING ROLE
Sandra Bullock, "The Blind Side"
Helen Mirren, "The Last Station"
Carey Mulligan, "An Education"
Gabourey Sidibe, "Precious"
Meryl Streep, "Julie & Julia"
ACTOR IN A LEADING ROLE
Jeff Bridges, "Crazy Heart"
George Clooney, "Up in the Air"
Colin Firth, "A Single Man"
Morgan Freeman, "Invictus"
Jeremy Renner, "The Hurt Locker"
DIRECTOR
James Cameron, "Avatar"
Kathryn Bigelow, "The Hurt Locker"
Quentin Tarantino, "Inglourious Basterds"
Lee Daniels, "Precious"
Jason Reitman, "Up in the Air"
ADAPTED SCREENPLAY
Neill Blomkamp and Terri Tatchell, "District 9"
Nick Hornby, "An Education"
Jesse Armstrong, Simon Blackwell, Armando Iannucci, Tony Roche, "In the Loop"
Geoffrey Fletcher, "Precious: Based on the Novel 'Push' by Sapphire"
Jason Reitman and Sheldon Turner, "Up in the Air"
ORIGINAL SCREENPLAY
Mark Boal, "The Hurt Locker";
Quentin Tarantino, "Inglourious Basterds"
Alessandro Camon and Oren Moverman, "The Messenger";
Joel Coen and Ethan Coen, "A Serious Man"
Bob Peterson, Pete Docter, Tom McCarthy, "Up"
ANIMATED FEATURE FILM
"Coraline"
"Fantastic Mr. Fox"
"The Princess and the Frog"
"The Secret of Kells"
"Up"
FOREIGN LANGUAGE FILM
"Ajami," Israel
"El Secreto de Sus Ojos," Argentina
"The Milk of Sorrow," Peru
"Un Prophete," France
"The White Ribbon," Germany
ART DIRECTION
"Avatar"
"The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus"
"Nine"
"Sherlock Holmes"
"The Young Victoria"
CINEMATOGRAPHY
"Avatar"
"Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince"
"The Hurt Locker"
"Inglourious Basterds"
"The White Ribbon"
SOUND MIXING
"Avatar"
"The Hurt Locker"
"Inglourious Basterds"
"Star Trek"
"Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen"
SOUND EDITING
"Avatar"
"The Hurt Locker"
"Inglourious Basterds"
"Star Trek"
"Up"
ORIGINAL SCORE
"Avatar," James Horner
"Fantastic Mr. Fox," Alexandre Desplat
"The Hurt Locker," Marco Beltrami and Buck Sanders
"Sherlock Holmes," Hans Zimmer
"Up," Michael Giacchino
ORIGINAL SONG
"Almost There" from "The Princess and the Frog" Randy Newman
"Down in New Orleans" from "The Princess and the Frog," Randy Newman
"Loin de Paname" from "Paris 36," Reinhardt Wagner and Frank Thomas
"Take It All" from "Nine," Maury Yeston
"The Weary Kind (Theme from Crazy Heart)" from "Crazy Heart," Ryan Bingham and T Bone Burnett
COSTUME
"Bright Star"
"Coco Before Chanel"
"The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus"
"Nine"
"The Young Victoria"
DOCUMENTARY FEATURE
"Burma VJ"
"The Cove"
"Food, Inc"
"The Most Dangerous Man in America: Daniel Ellsberg and the Pentagon Papers"
"Which Way Home"
DOCUMENTARY (SHORT SUBJECT)
"China's Unnatural Disaster: The Tears of Sichuan Province"
"The Last Campaign of Governor Booth Gardner"
"The Last Truck: Closing of a GM Plant"
"Music by Prudence"
"Rabbit a la Berlin"
FILM EDITING
"Avatar"
"District 9"
"The Hurt Locker"
"Inglourious Basterds"
"Precious: Based on the Novel 'Push' by Sapphire"
MAKE-UP
"Il Divo"
"Star Trek"
"The Young Victoria"
ANIMATED SHORT FILM
"French Roast"
"Granny O'Grimm's Sleeping Beauty"
"The Lady and the Reaper (La Dama y la Muerte)"
"Logorama"
"A Matter of Loaf and Death"
LIVE ACTION SHORT FILM
"The Door"
"Instead of Abracadabra"
"Kavi"
"Miracle Fish"
"The New Tenants"
VISUAL EFFECTS
"Avatar"
"District 9"
"Star Trek"
"Valentine's Day"
Since there’s not already enough hype surrounding Valentine’s Day, why not make a movie about it?
That’s what Marshall does in his star-stacked romantic comedy “Valentine’s Day.”
It’s difficult to summarize because there are so many different characters and plotlines, but basically the film follows the stories of multiple people (mostly couples), young and old, highlighting the pressure the pink-hearted holiday can put on people.
There’s the guy who just got engaged, his best friend and her new boyfriend, the grandparents about to renew their vows after 50 years, teenagers intent on losing their virginity, strangers who strike up a friendship on a 14-hour flight, a little boy trying to give flowers to his valentine, a couple who just started dating and of course the token neurotic, miserable, single girl who hates Valentine’s Day because she’s alone.
It’s a fairly typical rom-com, with the expected break-ups and make-ups, a few laughs and some serious moments. What makes it most interesting is the cast - even the minor characters are bankable stars. You’re keyed in the whole time just to see who else will show up.
But the film’s strength is it’s biggest weakness – like “Crash” it attempts to weave all these people together, but does so much less adeptly than the 2004 award-winner.
It’s entertaining, but it tries to do a little too much. The plot switches between characters so often that just when you start to get invested in one story, you have to switch gears. There were two or three plots that could have been developed into more interesting - and more meaningful - story lines, but instead became background to a series of cute moments.
The film also reigns in the considerable comedic talent, only generating a few laugh-out-loud moments despite the presence of veteran funny-people like Ashton Kutcher, George Lopez, Jamie Foxx, Bradley Cooper, Julia Roberts, Shirley MacClaine, Anne Hathaway and Queen Latifah. With a few exceptions, most of these A-listers are upstaged by newcomers Emma Roberts, Taylor Swift and Carter Jenkins in the laugh department.
And though the previews indicate that the film will attempt to provide a commentary on what Valentine’s Day looks like to couples across all spectrums, it instead tries to showcase the “real” meaning of love and romance.
The few truly touching moments must make way for the romances that take place, because, well, it’s Valentine’s Day.
In the end, “Valentine’s Day” doesn’t even meet its own standard of rising above the cliche romance that rom-coms like to peddle. But, it’s not all bad - cute and entertaining, and quite the cast.
Special thank you to Steve Dredge and the Jewell II
‘Valentine’s Day’
Directors: Garry Marshall
Writers: Katherine Fugate
Characters:
everyone in Hollywood.
Rating: PG-13 for “some sexual material and brief partial nudity.”
That’s what Marshall does in his star-stacked romantic comedy “Valentine’s Day.”
It’s difficult to summarize because there are so many different characters and plotlines, but basically the film follows the stories of multiple people (mostly couples), young and old, highlighting the pressure the pink-hearted holiday can put on people.
There’s the guy who just got engaged, his best friend and her new boyfriend, the grandparents about to renew their vows after 50 years, teenagers intent on losing their virginity, strangers who strike up a friendship on a 14-hour flight, a little boy trying to give flowers to his valentine, a couple who just started dating and of course the token neurotic, miserable, single girl who hates Valentine’s Day because she’s alone.
It’s a fairly typical rom-com, with the expected break-ups and make-ups, a few laughs and some serious moments. What makes it most interesting is the cast - even the minor characters are bankable stars. You’re keyed in the whole time just to see who else will show up.
But the film’s strength is it’s biggest weakness – like “Crash” it attempts to weave all these people together, but does so much less adeptly than the 2004 award-winner.
It’s entertaining, but it tries to do a little too much. The plot switches between characters so often that just when you start to get invested in one story, you have to switch gears. There were two or three plots that could have been developed into more interesting - and more meaningful - story lines, but instead became background to a series of cute moments.
The film also reigns in the considerable comedic talent, only generating a few laugh-out-loud moments despite the presence of veteran funny-people like Ashton Kutcher, George Lopez, Jamie Foxx, Bradley Cooper, Julia Roberts, Shirley MacClaine, Anne Hathaway and Queen Latifah. With a few exceptions, most of these A-listers are upstaged by newcomers Emma Roberts, Taylor Swift and Carter Jenkins in the laugh department.
And though the previews indicate that the film will attempt to provide a commentary on what Valentine’s Day looks like to couples across all spectrums, it instead tries to showcase the “real” meaning of love and romance.
The few truly touching moments must make way for the romances that take place, because, well, it’s Valentine’s Day.
In the end, “Valentine’s Day” doesn’t even meet its own standard of rising above the cliche romance that rom-coms like to peddle. But, it’s not all bad - cute and entertaining, and quite the cast.
Special thank you to Steve Dredge and the Jewell II
‘Valentine’s Day’
Directors: Garry Marshall
Writers: Katherine Fugate
Characters:
everyone in Hollywood.
Rating: PG-13 for “some sexual material and brief partial nudity.”
We are "Legion," for our errors are many
Legion is one of those rare films that is actually worse than it looked like it would be. I went in expecting it to be bad, and I was still disappointed.
The premise of the film is that God loses faith in humanity, and sends his angels to earth to bring about the apocalypse.
“The last time God lost faith in humanity, he sent a flood,” we are told. This time, he sends His angels.
But then Michael, God’s archangel, (Paul Bettany) decides that just because God has lost faith, it doesn’t mean he should – so he rebels against God’s orders.
Ok, where do I start?
Should I start with the fact that at NO point in any religious history has there been any documentation of people being “possessed” by angels?
The fact that these now-possessed people can’t be killed by broken bones, but they can, for whatever reason, be killed with bullets?
The fact that it suggests that angels can be killed at all? Call me crazy, but I thought the whole point and premise of angelic/demonic/supernatural beings is that they cannot die because they are. not. human.
But let’s not get stuck. There was also my confusion as to why all of humanity’s fate rested in this particular unborn child.
If this mother’s unwed state is meant to be an illusion to the immaculate conception, it is so far off-base that it’s not even worth the argument. Let’s just say this: I’m fairly certain that Jesus’ mother would not have smoked while pregnant, but I suppose I could be wrong.
But wait, there’s more.
There’s also the fact that the movie gets stuck somewhere between “Resident Evil” and “the Exorcism of Emily Rose” with its angel-zombies.
It’s not that it’s gory, because I’m sure the apocalypse won’t be PG. It’s the fact that these angels behave demonically, except for being confined to their human bodies – again, aren’t these supposed to be supernatural beings?
Never mind that Michael, supposedly so in love with humanity, actually only cares about saving one person and only helps the others because they were in the right place at the right time.
Michael and Gabriel are the only angels who are not limited to human form, therefore are the only ones that had a chance of seeming even a little supernatural.
Gabriel comes whirling in on iron-plated wings and twirls around. He might have intimidated me more had he not so reminded me of the Sky Dancer fairy dolls I had as a little girl. But he ends up being antiheroic from the start.
And I suppose since we were dealing with the apocalypse, the fact that a woman runs up a rocky cliff after just having given birth and then being in a fatal car crash shouldn’t seem that far-fetched.
I could expound on any one of those things.
But my main issue with the movie was its misinformed opinion on who God is.
The movie completely misses the point of any religion, turning God into some cosmic vengeance-seeking cowboy.
Michael claims he hasn’t lost faith in humanity, therefore he is going to try “giving God what He needed, not what he asked for.” He is made to seem heroic for this, and Gabriel foolish for not following his lead.
Read the Bible. Rebellion is not something that God has ever rewarded. Angels, humans, etc.
The only angels to defy God made that choice long before you or I came into being, and Michael was not among their ranks. His name was Lucifer, though he also goes by Satan.
And as for the human side of things: I submit the story of Abraham, when he was asked to sacrifice his own son. God spared him that fate, but not because Abraham rebelled – because he obeyed.
God sent his son to die to save humanity. It’s our choice whether or not we accept that. Isn’t that enough? How, after all that, has God been somehow turned into the bad guy?
The filmmakers read enough of the Bible to know that there was a flood, and that Michael and Gabriel are the only two angels ever mentioned in it by name, and then made up the rest.
The film takes everything that God has tried to tell us about Himself and turns it into something might be more user-friendly, but is much worse: the idea that we could know better than He does.
‘Legion’
Directors: Scott Stewart
Writers: Scott Stewart and Peter Schink
Characters:
Michael – Paul Bettany
Jeep – Lucas Black
Charlie – Adrianne Palicki
Kyle Williams – Tyrese Gibson
Percy Walker – Charles S. Dutton
Bob Hanson – Dennis Quaid
Gabriel – Kevin Durand
Rating: R “for strong bloody violence, and language”
The premise of the film is that God loses faith in humanity, and sends his angels to earth to bring about the apocalypse.
“The last time God lost faith in humanity, he sent a flood,” we are told. This time, he sends His angels.
But then Michael, God’s archangel, (Paul Bettany) decides that just because God has lost faith, it doesn’t mean he should – so he rebels against God’s orders.
Ok, where do I start?
Should I start with the fact that at NO point in any religious history has there been any documentation of people being “possessed” by angels?
The fact that these now-possessed people can’t be killed by broken bones, but they can, for whatever reason, be killed with bullets?
The fact that it suggests that angels can be killed at all? Call me crazy, but I thought the whole point and premise of angelic/demonic/supernatural beings is that they cannot die because they are. not. human.
But let’s not get stuck. There was also my confusion as to why all of humanity’s fate rested in this particular unborn child.
If this mother’s unwed state is meant to be an illusion to the immaculate conception, it is so far off-base that it’s not even worth the argument. Let’s just say this: I’m fairly certain that Jesus’ mother would not have smoked while pregnant, but I suppose I could be wrong.
But wait, there’s more.
There’s also the fact that the movie gets stuck somewhere between “Resident Evil” and “the Exorcism of Emily Rose” with its angel-zombies.
It’s not that it’s gory, because I’m sure the apocalypse won’t be PG. It’s the fact that these angels behave demonically, except for being confined to their human bodies – again, aren’t these supposed to be supernatural beings?
Never mind that Michael, supposedly so in love with humanity, actually only cares about saving one person and only helps the others because they were in the right place at the right time.
Michael and Gabriel are the only angels who are not limited to human form, therefore are the only ones that had a chance of seeming even a little supernatural.
Gabriel comes whirling in on iron-plated wings and twirls around. He might have intimidated me more had he not so reminded me of the Sky Dancer fairy dolls I had as a little girl. But he ends up being antiheroic from the start.
And I suppose since we were dealing with the apocalypse, the fact that a woman runs up a rocky cliff after just having given birth and then being in a fatal car crash shouldn’t seem that far-fetched.
I could expound on any one of those things.
But my main issue with the movie was its misinformed opinion on who God is.
The movie completely misses the point of any religion, turning God into some cosmic vengeance-seeking cowboy.
Michael claims he hasn’t lost faith in humanity, therefore he is going to try “giving God what He needed, not what he asked for.” He is made to seem heroic for this, and Gabriel foolish for not following his lead.
Read the Bible. Rebellion is not something that God has ever rewarded. Angels, humans, etc.
The only angels to defy God made that choice long before you or I came into being, and Michael was not among their ranks. His name was Lucifer, though he also goes by Satan.
And as for the human side of things: I submit the story of Abraham, when he was asked to sacrifice his own son. God spared him that fate, but not because Abraham rebelled – because he obeyed.
God sent his son to die to save humanity. It’s our choice whether or not we accept that. Isn’t that enough? How, after all that, has God been somehow turned into the bad guy?
The filmmakers read enough of the Bible to know that there was a flood, and that Michael and Gabriel are the only two angels ever mentioned in it by name, and then made up the rest.
The film takes everything that God has tried to tell us about Himself and turns it into something might be more user-friendly, but is much worse: the idea that we could know better than He does.
‘Legion’
Directors: Scott Stewart
Writers: Scott Stewart and Peter Schink
Characters:
Michael – Paul Bettany
Jeep – Lucas Black
Charlie – Adrianne Palicki
Kyle Williams – Tyrese Gibson
Percy Walker – Charles S. Dutton
Bob Hanson – Dennis Quaid
Gabriel – Kevin Durand
Rating: R “for strong bloody violence, and language”
"The Book of Eli"
Have you ever watched a movie that you felt like you should have definite opinions about, but all you feel is a certain apprehension?
If not, I have. ‘The Book of Eli’ would be one.
‘The Book of Eli” is yet another post-apocalyptic tale of survival after humanity has done its best to destroy itself and Earth.
Denzel Washington plays Eli, one of the few remaining members of the “old world.” He’s an old man who survived the disaster and now has this book that he will do anything to protect.
It seems as though he has done fairly well for himself, until naturally he strolls into a town where the Bad Guy lives.
This Bad Guy is a man named Carnegie (Gary Oldman), who of course has been spending his time looking for a book – the book that Eli has.
That Eli refuses to surrender the book is expected, and Carnegie's reactions come complete with all the action and violence to satisfy any Mad Max fan.
Not to be forgotten are Claudia (Jennifer Beals – Carnegie’s . . . wife? slave? Favorite prostitute? we don’t really know), and Solara (Mila Kunis), Claudia’s daughter (but not Carnegie’s).
Solara is sick of Carnegie hurting her mother to get what he wants, so she teams up with Eli to defy the villain and protect the book. What transpires is unpredictably predictable, though usually quite watchable.
The film itself is shot in muted tones that contribute to the feeling of sharing this wasteland with the characters. The filmmakers do an exquisite job of showcasing the brutality of this new world that still tries to reach back into what we know. Like a man who has to shoot cats with arrows just to survive, then uses KFC wet wipey packets to clean up after supper.
Or that it’s water, not gas or gold or ammunition, that the people in power control.
But I’m still confused.
Not by the ending, however shamelessly impossible it might be. I enjoyed the ending. It’s unexpected, if not plausible.
No, what confuses me I can’t quite put my finger on. It has to do with Eli, Carnegie and the book. Their behaviors just don’t make sense.
Eli’s character provides at least some explanation for his behavior. It’s not bullet proof, but it works.
Carnegie doesn’t.
For a man who reads Mussolini and has a troupe of vile henchmen at his beck and call, he seems incredibly daft.
He, like Eli, is of the old world – yet he has a deep-seated ignorance of the book that does not make sense.
This book is the secret to Carnegie’s ambitions, and the root of Eli’s faith. Yet both are very misguided as to its actual meaning.
It’s like the writers wanted so badly to make the book mean something grand and universal and metaphoric, but they, like Carnegie, don’t really understand what the book means.
It goes from simple to simplistic, and left me feeling unsatisfied when I really wanted to be on board.
‘The Book of Eli’
Alcon Entertainment
Directors: Albert and Allen Hughes
Writer: Gary Whitta
Characters:
Eli – Denzel Washington
Solara – Mila Kunis
Carnegie – Gary Oldman
Redridge – Ray Stevenson
Claudia – Jennifer Beals
Rating: R “for some brutal violence and language.”
If not, I have. ‘The Book of Eli’ would be one.
‘The Book of Eli” is yet another post-apocalyptic tale of survival after humanity has done its best to destroy itself and Earth.
Denzel Washington plays Eli, one of the few remaining members of the “old world.” He’s an old man who survived the disaster and now has this book that he will do anything to protect.
It seems as though he has done fairly well for himself, until naturally he strolls into a town where the Bad Guy lives.
This Bad Guy is a man named Carnegie (Gary Oldman), who of course has been spending his time looking for a book – the book that Eli has.
That Eli refuses to surrender the book is expected, and Carnegie's reactions come complete with all the action and violence to satisfy any Mad Max fan.
Not to be forgotten are Claudia (Jennifer Beals – Carnegie’s . . . wife? slave? Favorite prostitute? we don’t really know), and Solara (Mila Kunis), Claudia’s daughter (but not Carnegie’s).
Solara is sick of Carnegie hurting her mother to get what he wants, so she teams up with Eli to defy the villain and protect the book. What transpires is unpredictably predictable, though usually quite watchable.
The film itself is shot in muted tones that contribute to the feeling of sharing this wasteland with the characters. The filmmakers do an exquisite job of showcasing the brutality of this new world that still tries to reach back into what we know. Like a man who has to shoot cats with arrows just to survive, then uses KFC wet wipey packets to clean up after supper.
Or that it’s water, not gas or gold or ammunition, that the people in power control.
But I’m still confused.
Not by the ending, however shamelessly impossible it might be. I enjoyed the ending. It’s unexpected, if not plausible.
No, what confuses me I can’t quite put my finger on. It has to do with Eli, Carnegie and the book. Their behaviors just don’t make sense.
Eli’s character provides at least some explanation for his behavior. It’s not bullet proof, but it works.
Carnegie doesn’t.
For a man who reads Mussolini and has a troupe of vile henchmen at his beck and call, he seems incredibly daft.
He, like Eli, is of the old world – yet he has a deep-seated ignorance of the book that does not make sense.
This book is the secret to Carnegie’s ambitions, and the root of Eli’s faith. Yet both are very misguided as to its actual meaning.
It’s like the writers wanted so badly to make the book mean something grand and universal and metaphoric, but they, like Carnegie, don’t really understand what the book means.
It goes from simple to simplistic, and left me feeling unsatisfied when I really wanted to be on board.
‘The Book of Eli’
Alcon Entertainment
Directors: Albert and Allen Hughes
Writer: Gary Whitta
Characters:
Eli – Denzel Washington
Solara – Mila Kunis
Carnegie – Gary Oldman
Redridge – Ray Stevenson
Claudia – Jennifer Beals
Rating: R “for some brutal violence and language.”
Year in Review: Best/Worst of 2009
I’m willing to give almost any movie a chance, but 2009 was a rough year for cinema. I had way more disappointments than new favorites. But there were a few bright spots on the list, and here they are: my picks for the five best movies – and the five biggest letdowns – of 2009.
Best:
1. “Up” – Every now and then there’s a film that actually lives up to its expectations. This year, Disney takes the trophy with “Up,” a film that delivers all the sorrows and triumphs we’ve come to count on from Disney/Pixar.
2. “Defiance” – Stories like this are the reason why we go to the movies. It captures all aspects of Jewish life during World War II. It has enough action and romance to keep casual watchers interested, but beyond that, it is truly moving. Love, courage, fear, racism, adventure, romance, life, death – it’s all there.
3. “Sherlock Holmes” – Robert Downey, Jr. makes the man and the movie in this case. Both are quirky, charming and funny, but still intense enough to keep you interested.
4. “Inglorious Bastards” – Director Tarantino utilizes his rare gift to lighten a subject without devaluing it in this look at World War II. The only weak point is leading man Pitt, who is almost impossible to take seriously.
5. “Terminator 4” – John Connor’s newest episode is a fairly typical post-apocalyptic story line, but it’s done well enough to merit a viewing.
Biggest disappointments:
1. “Law-Abiding Citizen” – This movie tries so hard to be a psychological thriller, to give that “whoa!” factor instead of being just another shoot-em-up. But it is just another shoot-em-up – and not even a great one at that.
2. “Paul Blart: Mall Cop” – I think I just expected too much from this movie. For 95 percent of the time you don’t do much more than smile, and even then it’s just because you feel obligated to do something.
3. “Taken” – Like 2008’s “Wanted,” this film had the potential to be more than an action film. The filmmakers, however, never looked that far. There are no likeable characters in this film. You want to like Neeson. You want to feel for his daughter. But in the end, there are just too many reasons not to.
4. “Land of the Lost” – This film had two really funny parts, and both were in the previews. Otherwise, the jokes all got just as lost as the characters.
5. “Avatar” – Despite the sensation Cameron has created with his newest “epic,” it does not make my “best” list. Does it have amazing computer animation? Yes. Were the animations the only truly original things about it? Oh, yeah. The film only kept me engaged because I wanted to see if I had correctly guessed everything that would happen. I did.
Honorable Mentions:
6. “Harry Potter 6” – Between shuffling around battle scenes and focusing on the teen romances instead of the main story, this film leaves even non-diehard Potter fans dissatisfied.
7. “The Ugly Truth” – Katherine Heigl and Gerard Butler have great chemistry, just one of the many reasons why this plot’s resolution can be seen from a hot air balloon. Beyond that, it does its best to fill out that “R” rating will all the cheap jokes it can find in an attempt to be hip and irreverent. Instead it comes out just plain trashy.
Best:
1. “Up” – Every now and then there’s a film that actually lives up to its expectations. This year, Disney takes the trophy with “Up,” a film that delivers all the sorrows and triumphs we’ve come to count on from Disney/Pixar.
2. “Defiance” – Stories like this are the reason why we go to the movies. It captures all aspects of Jewish life during World War II. It has enough action and romance to keep casual watchers interested, but beyond that, it is truly moving. Love, courage, fear, racism, adventure, romance, life, death – it’s all there.
3. “Sherlock Holmes” – Robert Downey, Jr. makes the man and the movie in this case. Both are quirky, charming and funny, but still intense enough to keep you interested.
4. “Inglorious Bastards” – Director Tarantino utilizes his rare gift to lighten a subject without devaluing it in this look at World War II. The only weak point is leading man Pitt, who is almost impossible to take seriously.
5. “Terminator 4” – John Connor’s newest episode is a fairly typical post-apocalyptic story line, but it’s done well enough to merit a viewing.
Biggest disappointments:
1. “Law-Abiding Citizen” – This movie tries so hard to be a psychological thriller, to give that “whoa!” factor instead of being just another shoot-em-up. But it is just another shoot-em-up – and not even a great one at that.
2. “Paul Blart: Mall Cop” – I think I just expected too much from this movie. For 95 percent of the time you don’t do much more than smile, and even then it’s just because you feel obligated to do something.
3. “Taken” – Like 2008’s “Wanted,” this film had the potential to be more than an action film. The filmmakers, however, never looked that far. There are no likeable characters in this film. You want to like Neeson. You want to feel for his daughter. But in the end, there are just too many reasons not to.
4. “Land of the Lost” – This film had two really funny parts, and both were in the previews. Otherwise, the jokes all got just as lost as the characters.
5. “Avatar” – Despite the sensation Cameron has created with his newest “epic,” it does not make my “best” list. Does it have amazing computer animation? Yes. Were the animations the only truly original things about it? Oh, yeah. The film only kept me engaged because I wanted to see if I had correctly guessed everything that would happen. I did.
Honorable Mentions:
6. “Harry Potter 6” – Between shuffling around battle scenes and focusing on the teen romances instead of the main story, this film leaves even non-diehard Potter fans dissatisfied.
7. “The Ugly Truth” – Katherine Heigl and Gerard Butler have great chemistry, just one of the many reasons why this plot’s resolution can be seen from a hot air balloon. Beyond that, it does its best to fill out that “R” rating will all the cheap jokes it can find in an attempt to be hip and irreverent. Instead it comes out just plain trashy.
Movies not on this list because I haven't seen them yet but still would like to:
“The Men Who Stare At Goats”“Invictus”
“The Blind Side”
“Whip It”
“Up in the Air”
“Imaginarium of Dr. Parnassus”
“The Reader”
“Last Chance Harvey”
Movies I have no desire to see:
“The Box”
“Saw 6”
“Ninja Assassin”
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
