Top 10: 2009

More than most years, 2009 seems to be a year that no one can agree upon. Usually there seems to be a very strong consensus among critics what the top 10 or so movies of a given year are, but not this year. I can look at a top 10 list by a critic I respect and have it not match at all with another critic's list. And what's funny is that neither really matches with mine, nor does mine match with any of my friends'. This was such a diverse year in film that nothing stood out ahead of the pack. Maybe that's a good thing, maybe not, but either way, there's no denying there were a lot of interesting movies this year.

The running theme I noticed was how many messy, ambitious films came out this year. Filmmakers were really trying to be ambitious with their projects, and many failed to reach their lofty goals. And yet, those films became something more special for having tried to be bigger, different. Films like Funny People, Watchmen, Antichrist, The Informant, and Where the Wild Things Are were incredibly ambitious, and all failed on some level. And yet, those shortcomings made the films all the more fascinating. I will always take a failed masterpiece over something that plays by all the rules. While none of those films made my top 10, they deserve special mention for at least trying something.

So, without further ado, here are the greatest films of 2009.

10. Coraline

2009 may go down as one of the great years for animation. So many delightful animated films were released, and on top was Coraline. From Henry Selick, he who brought us Nightmare Before Christmas, this is a wonderfully weird and dark family film. In the character of Coraline, Selick found an offbeat and engaging heroine, one you could both route for and shake your head at simultaneously. The use of 3-D in this film also made me realize just what sorts of things were capable with the technology. Never used to beat you over the head, it brought you into the dual worlds Coraline exists in. Stop motion animation is a very exhausting and time consuming process, but I sincerely hope that Selick continues to champion it in the near future.

9. Adventureland

No film gets at the post college-grad life quite as perfectly as this one does: you know you've accomplished something great by getting a degree, but now what? Perhaps it is because I too had a pointless summer job post college graduation, but this film rang incredibly true to me. Sold as a raunchy Apatow comedy upon release, it is anything but. Filled with heartfelt moments, subtle humor, and engaging, conflicted characters, it is incredibly astute in its examination of a very specific moment in life. I admit, I can be a sucker for films that tap into a nostalgia for something in my past, and this film cut right to my heart. There are moments in life where you pause for a while and do something that seems meaningless at the time, but in retrospect it ends up being one of those great moments in your life. Adventureland gets the allure of those fleeting moments.

8. The Brothers Bloom

Following up his breakout film Brick, Rian Johnson makes a caper film that is every bit as fun. Mark Ruffalo and Rachel Weisz are in top form, and the script is incredibly intelligent. It hits at a theme that I think resonates with everyone, yet few, if any films really tackle: life, if we're being honest, has no narrative. No matter how many biopics we see that try to turn a life story into a cohesive narrative, we all know it isn't true. And yet, we all try to make our own internal narratives anyway. We find important meanings to our lives, and we try to construct our own story based on them. The Bloom Brothers understand this, and they feed off of it to create elaborate cons in which the mark can play into their own imagined life narratives. It is such a life affirming movie.

7. Paranormal Activity

I am something of a horror film buff. Every October I put a dozen horror films at the top of my Netflix queue and just enjoy the most macabre and silly films I can find. I have seen essentially all the "Scariest Moves Ever," from The Exorcist to Nosferatu to Halloween. None scared me as much as Paranormal Activity. None even came close. The experience of seeing this in a theater with a large audience is something I will take with me for the rest of my days. People were shaking, people were sobbing. This film was overwhelming. Of course, the backlash will ensue, but those of us who saw it in a darkened theater when it was still this small thing know that it is terrifying. I know it's a film I will break out every few years for Halloween, hopefully scaring some unsuspecting friend who hasn't seen it yet.

6. The Cove

I know a lot of people can be quite resistant to documentaries. Docs can be so dry and dull, so full of themselves. And how could something that examines dolphin slaughtering in Japan not be that? Well, watch The Cove and find out. Framed like it is a heist film, a group of filmmakers and activists decide to find out what exactly goes on in a hidden cove in Japan. They all know that dolphins are being captured in that cove, but they have no proof of what becomes of those animals. The film is breathless in the way it shows how these people sneak into this forbidden cove and set up hidden cameras to document the slaughter going on. It is an eye opening film, but one that is equally entertaining. It's one of the few documentaries I would recommend to those who don't like the genre.

5. Moon

What a great year for sci-fi 2009 was. While we had big spectacle films like Star Trek and Avatar, Moon went a different route. More in the vein of Kubrick's 2001, Moon is small, quiet, thought provoking sci-fi. There are no villains, no action set pieces, just a lot of stuff to chew on. Somehow it was released without its central premise being given away, so I will keep to that in the hopes that you won't spoil it for yourself and just experience it. Sam Rockwell gives the best performance of his career, as a man working alone in a station on the moon. Things that seem like plot holes (why would anyone allow one man to work alone on the moon?) turn out to be major plot points, asking you to consider certain aspects of human nature. If you like your sci-fi small on scale but big on ideas, this film will delight you.

4. (500) Days of Summer

Joseph Gordon-Levitt is quickly becoming my favorite actor. 2009 was his break out year, thanks in large part to this film. What could have been a slight romantic comedy instead turned out to be a great meditation on what it means to be in a relationship with someone, and what that does to the two people. This film was filled with a number of year best moments, from the post-coital dance number to the devastating reality vs expectations scene. Like 2007's Once, this film is for anyone who knows what it's like to be in a relationship, and all the ups and downs that come along with that.

3. District 9

On the opposite spectrum from Moon, District 9 is the kind of grand sci-fi action film that, when done correctly, can really tap into the zeitgeist. Not content to just be empty spectacle, this film tackles racism in a new and interesting way. Framed as a documentary about the relocation of alien refugees in South Africa, the film features a breakout performance from Sharlto Copley. This is a rousing picture that never skimps on all the important things: characters, ideas, story. I am generally against sequels, but this is the rare film that actually demands to be continued. In a year filled with exciting new directors, director Neill Blomkamp is the one to really watch.

2. Up in the Air

As you have probably heard in a number of reviews, this is the film of the moment. There are certain films that you can watch if you want to know what the world was like at a specific moment in time, and Up in the Air is that to 2009. The idea of a man who fires people for living, himself uncertain of how long he has left in his own job, is a great way to look at these uncertain times. Filled to the brim with great performances, it is George Clooney who anchors it all. I like to watch actors stretch and try new things, but sometimes playing a variation of your persona is the most effective way to go. Director Jason Reitman rightly realizes that by utilizing Clooney, he is able to align us with this character much more easily than if it had been played by someone who had to stretch to play the part. Funny, emotional, intelligent, and just a great time at the movies, Up in the Air never misses a step from beginning to end.

1. Inglourious Basterds

What more can be said about Quentin Tarantino at this point? It's safe to assume that when he is gone, he will be looked back at with reverence and fascination in the same way we do with Kubrick, Hawks, Truffaut, and other iconoclasts of cinema. His best film since Pulp Fiction, this is a layered, unusual, and exciting film. For those simply looking for a good time, you have a great story told with exciting flourishes and dynamic acting. But for those willing to dig a bit deeper, you have a meditation on the power of language and propaganda. Every chapter in the film plays a part in Tarantino's examination of how we use words to our advantage. Be it that brilliant opening scene (May we switch to English?), or the first meeting between Hans Landa and Aldo (Bonjourno!), how people use language is the dominating factor throughout the movie. And indeed, Landa (played to perfection by Christoph Waltz) may be the character of the year. I can think of no character that was more engaging, more interesting, and more unpredictable, than he. Inglourious Basterds is just that perfect fusion of filmmaker, concept, actors, and ideas that comes around all too rarely.

Avatar

In my lifetime, I don't think a film has gotten nearly as much hype as Avatar has. Maybe The Phantom Menace can equal it, but that was more for it being a return to a beloved franchise than for the film itself. With Avatar, James Cameron has repeatedly stated that this was a game changer. This film would singlehandedly thrust film into an exciting new direction, giving filmmakers new tools with which to play. For this film to be anything less then a 4-star masterpiece would be a failure, by Cameron's own definition. Being a devout Cameron fan, I can't help but admit that I was expecting the most from Avatar. Could he really live up to this hype he had built? Well, obviously, no, he couldn't. Not even close, actually. It seems unfair to hold high expectations against a film, but when a film is built and sold very specifically on those expectations, they must be taken into account. Avatar is not a failure, but it sure isn't a game changer, either.

It takes a lot of balls to say that your imagination is so great that film technology will need to catch up before you will return to film making, but that is essentially what James Cameron did in the wake of Titanic 12 years ago. Not content to just wait, though, Cameron has been actively pursuing advances in technology in order to bring his vision for Avatar to the screen. I can tell you that, yes, the visuals are quite stunning. The time and money spent to make motion capture technology make things look lifelike has paid off. It is simply amazing to look at this blue creature on the screen and instantly say "Whoa, that's Sigourney Weaver!" Robert Zemeckis has dedicated the better part of this decade to making motion capture a legitimate form of storytelling, and with a shrug he has said that these pictures aren't going to be perfect, but he has to keep making them until they do reach the level of perfection in his imagination. James Cameron wisely avoided this folly and just perfected the technology first, then made his movie. Perhaps the smartest aspect of this decision was that he wasn't trying to create human characters, like Zemeckis, but instead a whole new race of creatures that didn't have to look human.

Now, before I get ahead of myself, I do not think that the technology here is as groundbreaking as it should have been. Aside from facial features, the rest of the CGI is pretty cartoony. No one would mistake a crowd of animated Na'vi for real living creatures. I think that motion capture is also very dependant on the actors underneath the special effects. I find Gollum in Lord of the Rings more believable than anything in this film simply because the acting on display is more honest and true than that of the actors here. Sam Worthington was supposed to be the new big thing in 2009, but between Terminator Salvation and this, it is clear he is nothing special. His line delivery is depressingly monotone and one note, and I never for a second cared about his character. Zoe Saldana, as a Princess of the Na'vi, is actually quite good, but the problem is she just helps to shine a light on how bad her screen partner is by comparison. The rest of the cast doesn't exactly stand out (how does a Sigourney Weaver performance in a James Cameron film fail to stand out?!), but it is hard to discredit actors when the material they are working with is awful.

Now, you can change the game all you want, but if you don't have a great story to back it up with, it's all for nothing. James Cameron has never been accused of being a great dialog writer, but he knew how to string together a gripping, powerful story. That is never the case here, with what is easily his dullest story. In the future, we have depleted the resources on our planet, so we have made our way to Pandora. Pandora is a lush planet, but the native Na'vi do not appreciate our presence. Through a breakthrough in technology, we are able to create Na'vi avatars for people to infiltrate their society and either befriend them, or force them out. From this basic premise, the film hits all the expected notes: outsider infiltrates the Na'vi, begins to fall in love with one of them, decides to unite the Na'vi and save them from the invading forces. Now, I do like how much detail Cameron put into shaping this world, but if he had just spent as much effort on the characters and the story, this could have really been something. Instead, it is dreadfully dull, clearly telegraphed experience for most of the run time.

The other hyped aspect of this film is how it is supposed to legitimize the use of 3-D in films. Perhaps what surprised me most about this film was how unnecessary the 3-D actually was. A film like Coraline actually uses 3-D in artistic and emotional ways, trying to achieve something new. This film simply uses it to make things feel bigger and more expansive. Not all together an ignoble thing, but not something that really made me enjoy the film any more. While this film should be seen on the big screen if it is ever to be seen, seeing it in 3-D is not exactly a deal breaker. When the film finally gets to some action set pieces about 2 hours into the film, the 3-D makes it a bit more immersing, but I would also argue that by that point you will be a bit dulled to its existence.

I grew up on James Cameron films, and I love everything he has made. When he took a 12 year break, it was sad, but I was hopeful he would come back with something special. Instead, he seems to have lost a bit of his storytelling prowess. Considering what he stated he wanted to achieve with Avatar, the end results are dispiritingly lifeless. Yes, motion capture technology has upped its game in a big way, but without the great actors underneath it all, its just empty spectacle. I expect more from Cameron than that.

Catching Up: Mini-Reviews (Oscar Edition)

We're in the heat of awards season now, so I am catching as many films as I can before year's end. This past week I caught three films, all of which seem tailor made for the Oscars. Will any of them score with the Academy? I suspect at least one of them will. The other two? Well, read on...


Invictus

Clint Eastwood's latest is also among his worst, if not his outright greatest failure of the decade. I am generally a fan of Eastwood, which makes Invictus all the more painful. He has seemingly assembled all the right pieces together: a great historical figure in Nelson Mandela, a stellar cast (Morgan Freeman and Matt Damon), and a script that both works on its own and as an allegory for the current political climate here in America. And yet, none of it works. Eastwood is intent on oversimplifying the whole affair, to the point where Mandela comes across as naive and hopelessly lost in his new found position of power because all he cares about is rugby. We do not see him in any context except that which pertains to his dream of uniting the nation through the Rugby World Cup. Did Mandela actually do anything else, political or otherwise, in this period? Invictus would lead you to believe no.

The acting is unexceptional, Damon especially. Freeman is never bad, but he is not given a whole lot to work with. It's a shame, too, because Freeman seems like he makes a good Mandela, from what I can tell. But perhaps the most cringeworthy thing in this film, and the moment that made this go from simply bad to among year's worst, is the way in which it suddenly invokes 9/11 imagery for no reason. Now, in the right context this sort of thing is completely justified, but not here. As the final match of the World Cup begins, we get an out of nowhere scene in which a pilot informs his crew that he accepts full responsibility for what they are about to do. We watch as he pilots his plane towards the stadium. The plane just barely misses the stadium, and we see that the bottom of the plane has a message of congratulations written on it. This scene adds nothing to the film, aside from unnecessary tension and a sense of discomfort. What was Eastwood trying to say with this moment? Nothing, I suspect, and the film itself amounts to much the same thing: nothing.





The Lovely Bones

After four years out of the limelight, Peter Jackson is back with The Lovely Bones. The last time he adapted a beloved book we got Lord of the Rings. Unfortunately, lightning does not strike twice, although I suspect at least part of that is due to the source material. Never outright bad, The Lovely Bones does very little right, either. The story of a young girl who is murdered and watches from heaven (or is it?) as her family and her murderer go on with their lives. At the film's center, Saoirse Ronan is quite good. She is shaping up to be quite a skilled young woman, and I look forward to her future projects. Beyond her, though, little is worth mentioning, as the other performances are largely forgettable. As the murderer, Stanley Tucci feels like an amalgamation of killers we've seen before, never hitting any new notes. As the grieving father, Mark Wahlberg plays every scene in wide eyed wonderment. The rest of the cast don't even have enough screen time or character development to warrant much thought. Which is a shame, as they seem like they could have had real weight given the right director.

And indeed, Jackson seems ill-suited for this kind of story. He once might have been able to handle the smaller scale of the story, but his output this decade has steered his sensibilities towards spectacle and bloat. His vision of heaven (or is it?) rings false, largely due to the tacky and obvious cgi used. These images also overwhelm the human story at this film's center. By film's end, you feel slightly exhausted instead of emotionally satisfied. This story probably would have worked far better in the hands of an up and coming director who could make the picture smaller and more intimate, streamlining the novel's narrative in a more meaningful way. As it is, it simply doesn't work.





Up in the Air

This film is the real deal. After stumbling in a big way with Juno, Jason Reitman is at the top of his game here, as is George Clooney, who hasn't been this good in years. Up in the Air follows Ryan Bingham as he travels the country firing people for companies who can't seem to do it themselves. When he learns that he may himself soon be out of a job, he starts to question what it is that he wants out of his life. Clooney really makes you start to believe that his lifestyle would be fun, which is why he is the perfect man to play this role. When his walls start to come down, and he starts to second guess himself, we are right there with him. A lesser actor would have had us against him from the beginning. The rest of the ensemble are equally strong, with Vera Farmiga in particular standing out with her feisty and unexpectedly nuanced performance. Reitman has proven to have a knack for collecting the perfect actors for his movies and utilizing them correctly.

A great film is more than the sum of its parts, and such is the case here. I could go on and on about the great acting across the board, the smart and timely script, the way certain themes weave in and out of the story in subtle ways, and so on 9and I probably will in my best of the year countdown). But really, it is the film as a whole that is so wondrous. Everything in the film is there to serve everything else in the film. And as I think about this film, and as I write about it, I can't help but think how close to a masterpiece this film is. It absolutely needs to be seen.

Precious: Based on the Novel Push by Sapphire

Few films are as punishing as Precious. I have a pretty high tolerance for messed up movies: I sat through Audition, Salo, and Batman & Robin. But Precious hit me on a level that was almost too much for me. This film heaps so much on its protagonist - and by proxy, its audience - that I had to stop looking at the screen after a while. It wasn't that it was visually repulsive, just that looking at these characters became almost too painful. It didn't help that the acting was so strong that the people I was watching felt like real human beings. Now, a punishing experience can be a rewarding one: look no further than Requiem for a Dream for a perfect example of this. But when that punishment is in disproportion to anything else in the film, it can topple an otherwise noble venture. Yes, the story is powerful and the acting is great, but none of that matters when you feel like the director's primary goal is to make you feel repulsed.

Before I go any further: I liked this movie. Its strong points were enough to make this a satisfying experience. But it is impossible to overlook this film's huge flaws, and I may spend more time harping on them than I spend praising what works. Just remember that ultimately, I recommend this film. Ok then. Director Lee Daniels may have experience with the issues addressed in Precious, it may mean a lot to him personally, but he is unable to filter those emotions in a meaningful way on screen. What is a redemptive, powerful story at heart is undermined by his exploitative sensibilities. The way the film is shot and edited seems to relish in the most salacious imagery. Why must we see a rape scene intermixed with frying food and crumbling ceilings? Granted, there is no easy way to film such a scene, but Daniels seems to not trust that it is unsettling on its own, and must add extra touches to upset us. Indeed, that is problematic throughout. Daniels is never content to let his story tell itself, he feels compelled to insert heightened imagery and moments, as if we are so desensitized that we wouldn't respond otherwise.

Now, I have never experienced this world before, nor do I know anyone who has, so I have no good frame of reference for the material in this film. I am not naive enough to think that these sorts of things don't happen to people. I know it's a sad fact of life that some people live short, thoroughly unpleasant lives punctuated with abusive and damaging moments. But the amount of things piled onto Precious here are simply unbelievable, and unnecessary. When Precious brings home her newborn son, it's not enough that her mother is blowing smoke in the baby's face and cursing, she has to drop the child on purpose. It's not enough that Precious is raped by her father, she has to contract HIV from him as well. And on and on, etc. Precious is already a very sympathetic and fascinating character, but the screenplay does not trust this and keeps piling it on in the hopes of making us feel more for the poor young woman. Thankfully, it is the performances that overcome the screenplay and direction and almost make this a genuinely great film.

As Precious, Gabby Sibide is a revelation. She plays the damaged youth in a quietly affecting way. It helps that she's been blessed with such an expressive face, allowing her to transmit so much to the audience without saying a word. And in case you might think this unknown actress is simply playing an exaggerated version of herself, there are plenty of fantasy scenes where the mumbly, slow speaking girl is transformed into a glamorous, charming, verbose woman. From what I've seen in interviews, this is much more akin to the real Sidibe, making her transformation into Precious all the more amazing. But perhaps the real surprise is Mo'Nique. When I wrote about Funny People this summer, I said one of the great joys in film is seeing an amazing performance come from someone you didn't think had it in them. Well that is Mo'Nique to a T. She plays Precious' mom as an unholy monster of a woman, never shying away from the truly ugly nature of the woman. And yet, when it comes time to peel back a few layers, Mo'Nique is able to let us into this woman in unexpected ways while never letting us forget what she has done. It is a towering, fearless performance the likes of which we rarely see.

On the shoulders of these two actresses, Precious becomes a movie worth seeing. These are two of the best performances of the year, make no mistake, and they rise above their untrusting director. I think that this is a story well worth telling, but it has been done better elsewhere. For a similar examination of this kind of world, check out season 4 of The Wire. It covers much of the same territory, but with a much lighter and more refined style. It trusts the audience in ways Daniels never quite does. Still, Precious is a great character worthy of her own movie, and since we'll never get a movie worthy of her, this one will have to do.

Where the Wild Things Are

No matter what you think of Where the Wild Things Are, you have to give it credit for not being what you would normally expect from an adaptation of a children's book. I expect this film will divide a lot of people, and its theoretical target audience - kids - will almost certainly not like it. But the fact that it didn't turn into The Cat in the Hat or Shrek the Third is a minor miracle. But then, you don't hire Spike Jonze and expect typical. What Jonze instead delivered is a film that is melancholy, adventurous, lyrical, boring, artistic, plot-less, grim, scary, funny, alienating, and childish (among other things). It's a big ball of emotions, and that's kind of an exciting achievement. I can't say that I was always entertained, but on an intellectual level I was always fascinated.

To take the original Wild Things book and turn it into a feature length film is a daunting task in and of itself. The book is beautiful to look at, but it has no real plot. A boy named Max is punished, so he runs off to the land of the Wild Things, where he is proclaimed king and has a wild rumpus. He then goes home and eats dinner. Simple, fun, kids book. The film pads this concept out, and it does so by ramping up the emotional aspects of the film. We are completely in Max's (Max Records) head throughout the film, and at times it is wondrous what Jonze is able to achieve through this. He taps into memories of childhood that I had forgotten about completely, and seeing them on the screen brought on a flood of memories. I suddenly remembered doing those things, feeling that way. But as the film goes on, it loses some of those nostalgics in favor of exploring more general emotions. It is here where the film stumbles, and it is unfortunate that this is also the same moment when the Wild Things appear.

Each Wild Thing represents an emotion. Sure, they all apply to kids, but they really apply to everyone. Anger, loneliness, sadness, pride, bossiness: each has a Wild Thing. Unfortunately, the film doesn't quite know what to do with these emotional creatures. Max ultimately presides over them, and the symbolism of that is clear, though not always entertaining. Max struggling with his emotions is the right idea for this adaptation, but it is something that is dwelled upon for too long. That illuminates the real problem at hand: the film is just too long. As a short, it would be a masterpiece. At 90+ minutes, it can't sustain its central conceit. I loved being in the world for a time, but like Max, I longed to go home.

Where this film undoubtedly succeeds is in the visuals. The way Jonze created the Wild Things is stunning. Part Jim Henson puppets (think Sweetums), part CGI, they are seamless and easily the most beautiful special effects of the year thus far. On top of that, the cinematography and art direction bring this world to life in a mesmerizing way. The shots linger on this fantastical world much like your eyes might have on the pages of the book. I mentioned before that the film really gets into the head space of Max, and a big part of that is through the way they shot the world he exists in. Beautiful stuff.

Speaking of Max, the young boy playing him is wonderful. He is never cloying, never mugging. He simply feels like a real little boy. Having to act against these imaginary things, which probably looked pretty silly during filming, he is utterly believable. The way he naturally conveys the emotions of childhood are one of the strong points of the film. Max may just be a little boy, but you care about him and understand him through the performance. The other actors are just as great, though it is Max's movie. Catherine Keener as his mom is great and understated, and she leaves an impact on the rest of the film after she is gone. The Wild Things are all voiced wonderfully, especially by James Gandolfini as the central Wild Thing, Carol. Each actor is able to get to that central emotion their Wild Thing is supposed to represent, and they stick to it well. It's not a film about big lessons or evolving characters, so the Wild Things don't become different creatures thanks to Max, but you still feel like they've come to embrace who they are a little bit by the end.

Spike Jonze is a very interesting choice to direct this film. Clearly a man with a distinct vision, Warner Bros must have known they wouldn't get the typical family film from him here. And indeed, it really doesn't seem to work as a family film. I could get into it because I understood what Jonze wanted to convey, but it wasn't a film to be enjoyed as much as appreciated. It's a flawed film, but one that comes from a singular vision worth experiencing. Perhaps the best way to sum it up came from a mother and son sitting behind me at the screening. After it was over, the boy said to the mom "Why did you want to see this?" The mom replied, "Because it was beautiful."

Paranormal Activity

When a horror film is done right, when it hits exactly all the right notes, it is the best movie going experience. Fear is such a powerful emotion, it is fascinating to experience it. Films like The Exorcist, The Haunting, or The Texas Chain Saw Massacre can bring out a stronger emotional reaction from an audience than just about any other movie, period. Unfortunately, films like those come around maybe 3 or 4 times a decade, if we're lucky. The vast majority of horror films are simply made up of copious gore and jump moments. This decade especially has been devoid of any real classic horror films, with studios opting instead to remake every horror film imaginable. So when a little film called Paranormal Activity popped in out of nowhere, I took notice. It seemed to rely more on atmosphere than violence, something that goes a long way in a good horror film. Still, a film that derives scares from loud noises and lights flickering has to be exceptionally well done to avoid looking very silly. It's not an easy thing to pull off, especially on such a low budget. Thankfully, Paranormal Activity doesn't look silly at all. Indeed, it is downright terrifying.

The film, as you have probably heard, owes a lot to The Blair Witch Project. Like that film, it's a low budget indie film that some friends decided to make over a week. It's shot as if it is found footage from a couple who decided to look for paranormal activity in their house. You have to get into the right mindset for this kind of film, or else it won't work on you. However, if you can embrace it, it will frighten you like few other films have. It follows the couple as they realize that their house is haunted not by a ghost, but by a demon. One might wonder: why not leave the house then? That is answered in such a simple, logical, and terrifying way that it makes you feel almost as helpless as the characters in the film. There is no escape for the characters, and thus, none for the audience as well.

The film is basically a series of tension building scenes that just become more and more unbearable as the film progresses. At first we see doors open and close or hear loud stomping coming from the hallway, but these things become more and more intrusive and dangerous. There are so many moments that stand out as utterly scary, that it becomes useless to list them. One that I will mention is when the demon decides to grab somebody and take them with him down the hall. We've assumed up until this point that the demon will only interact with the object in the house, not the people. So when it happens, this moment comes seemingly out of nowhere and hits you very hard. And it's only the tip of the iceberg. While the demon in question is never seen, its presence it palpable. The filmmakers used very trick they could think of to make this thing feel so menacing, and it pays off.

I can honestly say I've never been this scared by a movie before. It took me by complete surprise. The way it draws you into the experience, it becomes overpowering at times. The screams from audience members were constant throughout the film, and people were physically shaking after it was over. Given how many horrible horror films we've had the last decade, I think a lot of people have forgotten just what it's like to be genuinely scared by a movie. I'm not talking about things jumping out at you and making you jump in your seat. This film creates honest dread in you as you watch it, and it is hard to shake once it's over. It's not the most eloquently put together movie, but as a horror film, it stands out to me as one of the most effective - if not the most effective - that I have ever seen. If you care at all about horror films, you owe it to yourself to see this movie. Because, honestly, who knows when we'll ever get something quite this scary again.

The Final Destination

Earlier this year I was watching The 400 Blows again with a friend who just didn't get the appeal of the film. I tried to explain to him the artistry on display, but to no avail. I realized that perhaps my taste had gotten inexorably out of touch with the mainstream. At the time I toyed with the idea of writing an article about my biggest guilty pleasures, to show that I could enjoy Truffaut while also enjoying Freddy Got Fingered (I do). I ultimately abandoned the idea, although I may yet return to it. I will say that the number one guilty pleasure would have been the Final Destination franchise. I love it. It's pretty dumb, repetitive, and very silly. Yet I've always enjoyed it in spite of those facts (or probably because of them). The first is a legitimately thrilling film. The second takes the concept and cranks it to the logical extreme - the car crash at the beginning is one of the most memorable scenes I've ever seen. The third was a step down, but still fun. So here comes the fourth one, in 3D no less! Does it live up to the standards of the previous films? Well, not really.

I'll try to come at this as a fan of the series and not as a film critic or a movie buff. To put it succinctly, they aren't trying anymore. There is no set up and very little payoffs. Where once the characters had some level of intelligence and personality, here they are almost all fodder for death. Many of them don't even have names, credited instead as "MILF" or "Racist" or "girl on top." That's how little this film cares about characters. On top of that, where once we would watch the characters come to grips with their situation and try to comprehend it, here they understand it immediately and just rush from one death scene to the next with nothing in between. There's no discussion of death's design or what it means. And where is Tony Todd? Even the last movie found the time to give him a voice cameo. Perhaps they were afraid he would overshadow these horribly bland actors. I always felt he should have become more central to these films as they progressed, but instead he became less.

The one actor/character that actually is worth anything is Mykelti Williamson as George. His conflicted security guard is perhaps the most interesting and complex character in the franchise (that isn't too difficult, but still worth mentioning). It made me wonder why the film couldn't have been about him and not the forgettable lead character. Here's a guy that accidentally killed his family years ago while driving drunk, and he is now ready to face his ultimate judgement. Instead he is a supporting player that doesn't factor into the film's endgame (make of that what you will). A better movie would have been letting George and Racist be the only two left standing, forced to work together to cheat death.

Really, the whole film feels like missed opportunities. There are two preteen boys who survive the opening disaster, yet they are totally forgotten about. Surely the film could have had some fun with dispatching them (not to mention, not killing them is a plot hole). Also, the death scenes are fairly bland by this franchise's standards. While it is funny to see a character talk about deja vu, only to be killed in the same way as the first film's most famous scene, it lacks the originality a lot of fans will desire. The kills are often totally unsurprising and devoid of suspense. You know exactly how and when people will die in almost every instance. And when it does try to surprise you, it's never shocking or unique, just a tweak on your expectations.

The Final Destination concept is one ripe with potential, yet the films keep repeating the same formula. What about a film in which an older character has been cheating death for their entire life, and what pulling that off repeatedly for so long can do to you (insanity? A God complex)? Or one in which the person who has the premonition dies first, leaving the others in total confusion? Or one in which the Tony Todd character is the one to have to cheat death, opening up to us just what it is he knows about this phenomena? Or, how about end the series in an epic fashion? Have a character thwart a major cataclysmic event (asteroid/nuclear explosion/etc), only to have death come for hundreds of thousands of people at once. It's the kind of epic concept that could reinvigorate this series. I'm sure in three years we will get another film, I'm sure it will be the same exact thing, and I'm sure I will be even further removed from mainstream cinema. But I'd bet good money I'll still see it anyway. They have a hold on me, hopefully you are a bit more discerning.

Inglourious Basterds

In the 5 years I've been doing this, there are few major working filmmakers left that I have yet to really talk about. While I reviewed Grindhouse, I didn't really discuss Quentin Tarantino. Well, that changes here. After breaking out with Pulp Fiction, and following it up with Jackie Brown (a film slowly gaining the esteem it deserves), I feel Tarantino has been off his game. The Kill Bills didn't quite work for me - although I am in the minority of preferring Vol. 2 - and Death Proof was his career low point. And yet, much like Scorsese, even a bad Tarantino film is a film worth watching and discussing. So where does that leave us with Inglourious Basterds, his decade in the making WWII project? Well, I am of the opinion that he is back on the top of his game. Here is a film second only to Pulp Fiction in his canon, and it is a film filled to the brim with ideas, characters, and pure entertainment of the kind only Tarantino seems able to deliver.

Basterds is a film about a lot of things, and while I know Tarantino would like people to simply enjoy his films first and foremost, I feel that at the heart of the film there are two issues worth examining. Namely, the influence of cinema on the world, and the power of language. The second item first: this is not an action film, but a dialog-action film. The most tense beats don't come from shootouts, but rather from the words that lead to the shootouts. The man who uses words most to his advantage is Hans Landa (Christoph Waltz). Nicknamed "The Jew Hunter," Landa sees himself more as a detective, and he uses words to find what he wants. Take the opening - perhaps best - scene, in which Landa interrogates a farmer about the whereabouts of his Jewish neighbors. Landa chooses his words oh so carefully, using them to gain the upper hand in the conversation. He seems to derive pleasure from being the most informed person in the room, and he likes to doll out what he knows slowly, as to let it dawn on his prey just what he knows. He could easily come into a room shouting and blasting, but instead he takes the most pleasure from methodically telling the farmer what he knows. This is something he does throughout the movie and it never ceases to be thrilling. We are never sure what to make of Landa because he seems to pick and choose what should be said when. When he finally lays everything out, you may be surprised where his true allegiences lie (or perhaps not).

And in a film where the words are so important, it is interesting to note how multilingual the film is. English is spoken only sparingly, and there is French, German, Italian, and maybe other languages used throughout. At one point, Landa asks to switch from French to English, and we think it's simply a silly way for Tarrantino to make it easier on the audience. Not at all. It is a very deliberate tactic used by Landa, and the realization of that fact is one of the film's many powerful moments. The power of language clearly has a hierarchy in the film, as evidenced by the titular Basterds not knowing any other languages. When it comes time for them to enact a plan that could end the war, it is reliant on them knowing another language. Most of them speak only English, and a few can speak broken Italian. This puts them at a major disadvantage in the film's climax. It is refreshing to see a film examine the ways power can play out in a multilingual world.

The other point of interest is the cinema itself. Tarantino loves to reference other films in his work, and here is no exception. From the famous open door shot in The Searchers, to the use of classic Ennio Morricone scores, this is as much a Western at heart as it is a war film. And yet, that is not enough for Tarantino. Here he actually uses his film as a way to comment on the power of film as a medium. Much of the film takes place in a French cinema house during a world premiere. The film in question, a Nazi propaganda film, is used to demonstrate the way film can be used to form opinions. Much like language, Tarantino is saying that cinema itself can be a powerful tool in how power is delegated. And on the flip side, film can be the ultimate catharsis. Young Shosanna Dreyfus, whose family was killed by Landa, creates her own film to splice into the propaganda film during the premiere. Forcing the Nazis in attendance to watch it gives her a moment of power over those who have tried to take power away from her. More than any other thing he has done, Inglourious Basterds is Tarantino's love letter to cinema.

But is the film itself entertaining? On an intellectual level, clearly. But for the average audience, I it might be too much to take. It's a two and a half hour movie with very little English dialog. It was sold as a Brad Pitt action film, when in reality his Basterds are a small part of a bigger picture. The film is at least 90% people talking to each other. And yet, there seems like a lot here that people can enjoy as well. The dialog is often excruciatingly tense, the violence - when it's there - is visceral, and the ending is an amazing and unexpected payoff. People around me seemed dumbfounded by something Tarantino does at the end, and when they began to grasp that he had indeed gone there, surprised laughter started erupting around the theater. The payoff is well worth it, it just depends on how willing you are to go along with the film in order to get there. For me, it's probably the most interesting and exciting picture of the year so far, and one I hope to revist again soon.

The Marc Pease Experience

Everyone is an expert at something: some people are experts in medicine, others are experts in auto mechanics. I am an expert on The Marc Pease Experience. Outside of those involved directly with the film, I have probably seen it more times than anyone else. Back in 2007 I saw it in its earliest stages. Last year I saw it again in a more finished form. And now, here it is, finally being released in 2009. Judging by the release it's getting, though, I will probably remain the preeminent expert on the film for a long time to come. You'd be forgiven if you have no idea what film I am talking about, as there has been no promotion for it at all. And not in the "they should have promoted it more" sense. No, they literally never cut a trailer or made a poster (what you see to the right is an old announcement poster from when this was still in production). You might be surprised to know it stars Jason Schwartzman, Ben Stiller, and one of the women of Twilight. How does a movie like this get no push at all? Well, it could be because it's one of the worst movies I've ever seen.

The film is about a young man named Marc Pease (Schwartzman), who was a big musical theater star in high school, but choked during the big performance. Since then, he's been mentally stuck in his high school days, unable to move on. He is dating a high school girl, is in an A Capella band, and constantly pesters his high school drama teacher Mr. Gribble (Stiller) about getting him and his band a record deal. When Marc learns that Gribble will be putting on a production of The Wiz, the very same show he choked so many years ago, his life goes into a tailspin. Fairly simple stuff, and it very much plays as a family friendly comedy, save for one detail: it's filled with pedophilia.

That's right, Marc Pease is basically a pedophile. He is dating (and we can assume doing more with) a young high school girl (even if she is 18, it's implied they've been together longer than that). But it doesn't end there. Gribble is also striving for the affection of said girl. In fact, we see him kissing her early on. And the weirdest thing is, this aspect of the film is never mentioned or dealt with. It is accepted as a natural, matter-of-fact part of life that grown men will seduce underage women. This aspect of the film could have been used in a very darkly funny way, but instead the rest of the film aims for Nickelodeon level humor. As it stands, this whole element of the film is very jarring and does not fit into the film. And yet, without it the already unusually short film would be no more than an hour long. The film uses the fact that both men love the same girl as a point of conflict in the story. If it weren't for this aspect, there would be no drama at all. So basically the movie screwed itself by making the least likable aspect of the film a major part of the story while also not using it in any meaningful way. It's extraneous and yet can't be purged.

I'm not sure on the actual length of the film, but I would guess it is in the 70 minute range. And even then, the film is greatly padded. As mentioned before, Gribble is putting on The Wiz. At least a fourth of the film is people we have never seen before and who have no relevance to the plot performing scenes from The Wiz. The only character that we know that's in the play is the love interest, and her part is that of a glorified extra. With no context for the scenes we are shown from the play, and with no one in it worth caring about, this entire fourth of the film is utterly a waste. You get the sense that writer/director Todd Louiso is a big fan of high school theater and really wanted to share that love with the rest of the world. Well, congrats Todd, you got your chance!

The acting is across the board career low points. Schwartzman seems befuddled half the time, whiny the rest. He does the character of Marc no service by making him such a tool and a loser. And Stiller seems bored out of his mind. He is clearly not trying in the least bit, and you get the sense that the screenplay was thin and asked of him to improvise, and he simply refused. It's like they left spots for him to crack jokes and he just quietly stood there in defiance. At one point they even give him a musical number where he sits on a piano and sings a song for no reason! The weirdest part of the Pease/Gribble dynamic is that we are supposed to side with Marc in the battle between the two, and yet I found myself feeling more for Gribble. Here is a man who is being harassed daily by a guy in an A Capella group that isn't any good, being asked to get this sorry sack a record deal. On top of that, this pathetic manchild ruined his original staging of The Wiz eight years ago, and has now returned to do it once again. Because Stiller puts in no effort, Gribble lacks any emotion, and thus, any menace. He just seems like a sad, regular drama teacher. How can we possibly hate him and side with Marc? The only bad thing he does is making out with a teenager, but we already know Marc does the same thing so its moot (in the world of the film, of course).

Ultimately, we are supposed to route for Marc to grow up, overcome his childhood traumas, and move on. And sure enough, he does! He confronts Gribble, breaks up with his underage girlfriend, saves the play he already ruined once, and quits his ridiculous A Capella band. Marc Pease, you are now a man! So what does this newly minted adult do next? Why, he becomes a very bad lounge singer. Music swells, curtains fall, applause. But wait! Is this really a happy ending? Marc is still pursuing the same dream as before, one he is obviously no good at. He just moved from one horrible genre to another. Are we really supposed to think everything will be all better for a man who is emotionally stunted, has no realistic life skills, and a predilection towards underage women? The only real job he could possibly get is being a drama teacher in a high school, but we all know he would last about two weeks before a storm of lawsuits rain down upon him from angry parents and children with shattered lives.

The Marc Pease Experience is one of the more inept movies I have ever seen. It didn't make me angry, like Transformers did earlier this year, but it did make me sad. The only person involved that seems to have cared is Todd Louiso, but he was fighting against an Ed Wood level script, actors with no interest, and a studio hellbent on destroying his film. I really wish this had gotten some sort of real release so that I could read other opinions on the film. I am curious to see how fresh eyes would view this disaster. But instead, the film gets dumped into ten theaters ("with potential to expand if the market demands it" according to a press release). So I remain the lone expert on this debacle. Perhaps that is for the best.

Funny People

There are few film going pleasures more delightful than to see an actor that no one expects much from giving an amazing performance. Everyone expects great things from Jack Nicholson or Meryl Streep, so it's not as satisfying when they do knock it out of the park. But when someone like Adam Sandler comes along and gives us - for my money - the performance of the year, it's something to really savor. Sandler has been great before in Punch-Drunk Love, so I knew he had this in him, but he buries his great work under piles of dumb comedies and bland melodramas. Yet even in films like Anger Management, you could tell there were layers to his performance that the film itself did not complement. Freed from all shackles, he is finally able to deliver the most fully formed character of his career.

Adam Sandler became popular at the exact moment that his brand of humor would have most appealed to me. I still consider Happy Gilmore and Billy Madison to be among the best comedies of the 90's.That said, after Little Nicky my interest in his comedy waned; I grew up and Sandler didn't. Yet he played such an important part in my early film going experience that it was hard to let that go. I still try and catch his movies from time to time, and I secretly hope he one day is able to leave behind his comedies and become a more respected actor. So my bias was certainly there to want a great performance out of him. In Funny People, he plays George Simmons, an Adam Sandler-like comedian who has reached the zenith of his career but has let fame get to him. With no real friends and no family, he is forced to deal with his diagnosis of Leukemia alone. He goes out to a comedy club to perform (his jokes consist of such winners as "what will you all do when I am gone, who will amuse you?") and quickly bombs. He is followed by Ira Wright (Seth Rogen), who rips into Simmons. Simmons decides to hire the young comic as his assistant/friend/confidant. It is from their relationship that the plot - and the humor - flows.

What struck me most about Sandler's performance was how completely unlikable he was willing to be. A real sticking point for me with a lot of big name actors is their unwillingness to be unlikable on screen. They always make the most unsavory characters redeemable, lovable even. Not Sandler. He embraces the inherent misanthropy in Simmons, making him a bitter, angry, vile person with no real sense of how to treat other people. He's like a funnier Daniel Plainview. And yet he earns our sympathy through the tricks of director Judd Apatow. Apatow fills the film with a sense of a lost past for Simmons. Sandler has had probably half his life recorded for audiences at this point, so the film uses much of that footage to gives us a history of Simmons. Perhaps the best use of such footage is from when Apatow and Sandler were roommates back before either was famous. The two would make prank phone calls and have a fun time together. This footage opens the film, and while very funny, it gives us such a strong sense of that human connection that Simmons has lost over the years. Where he once could enjoy life with his friends, fame and money have stripped that from him.

The film also wouldn't work without Rogen to balance it. He is at the opposite side of the career spectrum of Simmons, and we get the sense that he and his friends are living a similar like to Simmons and his friends pre-fame. We are asked to wonder whether they will be able to overcome that which destroyed Simmons, or whether they will follow in his footsteps. We can already see seeds of a similar life path and jadedness in the character played by Jason Schwartzman, but Rogen seems like a levelheaded enough person to avoid it. It is these wonderful character dynamics that make the whole piece really shine.

For me, Funny People was a perfect confection of humor, drama, acting, characters, story, themes - everything I could want from a motion picture - for the first hour and a half. Really just perfect. But it's a two and a half hour movie, and as a result, it starts to lose its power with the final hour. Apatow has always been a self indulgent filmmaker, and it has worked in his favor before. Here he goes too far, unfortunately, and it honestly could ruin the whole experience for a lot of people. As he did in Knocked Up, he casts his wife and two children in the film. Here, however, they become the central focus of the film for the final hour, taking the focus off of Simmons and his relationship with Ira. This segment was vital to sending home the message of Simmons being doomed to stay the unhappy person he is, but it could have been done in about twenty minutes or so. When Leslie Mann breaks out a home video of her and Apatow's daughter in a school performance of Cats, it's clear that Apatow has gone far off into his own head.

And yet, I love that a filmmaker would make a movie for himself first and foremost. Apatow's passion for these characters and their world shines through in spite of (or perhaps because of) that final hour. It's not a film for everybody, and especially not a film for those expecting the usual Sandler comedy, but it was the perfect film for me. It's a real shame that Sandler won't be remembered come Oscar season, because I really feel that he rises above other comedians turned dramatic actors of late (Jim Carrey, Will Ferrell) and delivers a brilliant performance. The real heart breaker, though, is that this film won't make as much money as his usual fare, and he will go back to starring in low rent David Spade or Kevin James comedies. I hope that the great actor hiding within Sandler doesn't stay hidden again for long, but when movies about man-babies and mermen make more money than thoughtful comedy-dramas, I guess it's only inevitable.