Best Films of 2009 (ongoing)

When Ponyo came out, I stole Roger Ebert's line about Almost Famous and said I wanted to hug the movie. When I finally saw (500) Days of Summer, I wanted to hug, kiss, lick, squeeze, and make gentle, passionate love to the movie. Finally, a 5 star film of 2009. Finally, a truly great movie in a year awash with disappointments and flops. I don't give out 5 stars easily - hell, this is the first time since Synecdoche New York, and only the second since Dark Knight. It's been a long time - but finally, it's arrived, and in the last place I expected. Do you want to see a truly original, completely different and awe-inspiring movie? Don't look here. That's not what this film is about. Instead, it takes all the formulas, all the cliches, all the things we expect in our romantic comedies, and twists it completely on it's head. If you think you know what's going to happen, you may be right, but it's doubtful you'll ever expect just how charming, adorable, thought provoking, emotionally stimulating, and just plain wonderful the journey will be.

The opening of the movie warns us that it is not a love story. This is both true and false - it is absolutely a story about love, just not THIS particular love between THESE particular characters. It's the first awesome step of many that the film takes. A lot of people complain about feeling bummed out after the film, but how could they? The movie is as optimistic about love as any Kate Hudson/Matthew McCoughany film - it's just that it is also realistic and mature enough to know that sometimes that "true love" happens after many breakups, heart aches, and failed relationships where you thought everything was perfect until the awful "I think we should see other people" comes up. Most movies don't think like this. They only want us to see the one great relationship in the character's lives. In a way, that does indeed happen here, but only as a stepping stone to other real life loves. If you don't want to see this on a movie screen, then you must be too naive to realize it happens in real life all the time.

The flick got a lot of attention for it's structure. It flips all over through time, sometimes showing us the happy days where Joseph Gordon Levitt and Zooey Deschanel (my God, has any movie ever loved an actress as much as this sucker?) get to know each other, start their relationship, fall in love. And then in a flash, it'll cut to the days where they've broken up, and Levitt tries to move on, and Deschanel does with much greater ease. And isn't this exactly how we remember all our relationships? As Levitt's little sister even says in the film, we look back on our loves and remember only the best and worst of times, never the in between stuff. That the writers and director of (500) Days understood this shows what a bright bunch of brilliant fuckers they are. Indeed, the movie is written and shot in ways that will impress and surprise you - a hilarious song and dance routine, for instance, or the random third-person voice over that occasionally comments, or Levitt describing all the things he loves about Zooey and then later saying the exact same things and how much he hates them - or what could very well be the most brilliant scene of the year, a split screen showing what Levitt expects romantically from an evening, and what actually happens in reality. Cinematographically, I read that the director decided to change the colour tone of the film to match Zooey Deschanel's eyes, and there are so many close ups featuring her best physical aspect that you sometimes expect her to make out with the camera. She's wonderful in the film, as is Levitt, who does an awkward sort of charming that I didn't know was in him.

Is the movie perfect? Nah. The scenes with Levitt's friends often fall flat, as the actors portraying them tend to overdo the "dude, I soooo love blowjobs!" kind of attitude. And I'm sure there's some pacing problems, or maybe the soundtrack gets a little too "indie" (actually, fuck that - I bloody love the soundtrack). But in all honesty, I don't much care about the flaws. Why should I? I haven't felt this much love for a film in many long, agonizing months. I deserved to see a great movie, dammit! (500) Days of Summer will make you laugh, it will make you nod knowingly, it will make you cry...hell, it might even make you a little unsure of your own relationships, past or present. And that's a good thing. We should be thinking about that stuff. And guess what? We don't when we watch the latest Kate Hudson movie. And for that reason alone, (500) Days of Summer is a landmark film.

Oh, how I wanted to hug this movie. Ponyo is easily the most adorable, cute, whimsical, magical, and downright enjoyable animated films of recent years. It also, by the way, literally fucks the shit out of every Pixar movie that has EVER come out, including WALL-E and Up, and I actually really liked those ones. In fact, I can't remember the last time an animated film was this enchanting - oh, wait, yes I can; Polar Express, almost 5 years ago, and before that I'd say we're probably looking at Beauty and the Beast. The movie was so good, in fact, that watching it I became so immersed in the story that I completely forgot that I had just met my online flixster friend John mere minutes ago and he was sitting beside me for the first time in my life. If a gawddamned cartoon is so enrapturing that you even manage to forget where you are and who you're with, that's saying something.

Ponyo tells a story. It doesn't have a plot, and it doesn't have much in the way of tension, fear, suspense, treachery, villiany, or predictable plot outcomes. It simply tells a cute story involving characters that are given time and breath to develop personalities - when was the last time you saw THAT in an animated film? You keep expecting the gears of the plot to start working, which is something that happens in even the most acclaimed of Pixar's works. I kept waiting for the standard and obligatory "morales" about "family's stick together". I kept waiting for a bad guy to pop up and make life miserable for the kids until the happy ending. I kept expecting stupid misunderstandings to happen about 3/4's the way through to make the friends fight and seperate, only to reunite in the end when one inevitably saves the other. And most of all, I kept waiting for zany, slapstick action/comedy scenes, puncuated with annoying pop culture references and "witty" one-liners. Guess what? This movie has none of that. What it has is both a maturity and a pure innocence that makes the experience of watching it both unexpected and absolutely delightful.

The animation itself is both extraordinary and completely ordinary, if that makes any sense. In this CGI feuled world, we expect our animations to give us the most crisp and three dimensional of detail - if there's an animal on screen, we fully expect to see every piece of fur and whiskers on it's body, or we don't buy it. Well, that level of detail is not on display in Ponyo. In a way, yes, the animation can seem a little flat. But the visuals and the imagination behind them are so beautiful and stunning that we forgive the movie this "backward step" (even though I would much rather watch more animated films done in this style than another Ice Age). The opening scene, where we go under the sea and witness sights I've never seen in a film before, is just an opening act for a movie filled with eye popping moments - the sea goddess, the ancient fish floating around in a drowned town, Ponyo and the other fishes transformations from humans to fish to everything in between. And above all, we have the best scene of the year, where Ponyo chases after her little friend by leaping and running on top of massive fish-waves crashing against the road (no amount of words could possibly describe how magical and goosebump-inducing this scene is).

So I guess the movie isn't perfect, persay. The story does occasionally ramble, such as lengthy moments at an old folks home or a long trek on a boat and a total lack of conflict (which is both a strength and a weakness). But the pro's far outweigh the cons. The voice over work, including talent ranging from Liam Neeson to the sister of Hannah bloody Montana, are perfect. The characters are all interesting and somehow, realistic, especially in Neeson's "villian", who winds up not being a villian at all. The music by Joe Hisaishi is absolutely gorgeous, the writing and directing from the master Hayo Miyazaki is great as always (so I'm told - I'm sadly not familiar with his work). And above all, the adorable romance between Ponyo and the little boy is so gosh-darn wonderful that everyone in the audience, from the little kids to the parents that accompany them, will be misty eyed in the end. Ponyo isn't just the best animated film in years - it's also the best movie of the year so far, period. For once, it looks like Pixar will actually have competition at this year's Oscar-cast.

Note: The following is my original 4 star review of Watchmen; however, after seeing the 25 minute longer Director's Cut, I have to up the star rating a bit. It's probably the most brilliant and altering director's cut I've ever seen (besides Kingdom of Heaven that is, which was like watching a completely different movie). This version fleshes out the smaller moments more, amplifies relationships, and even has some more great violent action scenes like Hollis Mason's murder. I really liked the film in theatres, but the Director's Cut on DVD (baked especially) is a near masterpiece.

-------------

When you think about it, Mystery Men is probably the most realistic superhero movie ever made. Maybe you remember it - came out in 1999, a huge box office dud, was a very silly comedy starring Ben Stiller and a bunch of other guys as wannabe superheroes. The reason it's the most realistic superhero flick is because it finally asks all those questions about the reality of superheroes that have always gone unanswered - what do their mothers think? Do their wives appreciate them fighting crime? Do they have to pay taxes and do chores? What's the sex like? Mystery Men answered those sorts of questions, and now, Watchmen does too. It's a fascinating film, epic and audacious, and is a total mess to boot. That's more of a comment than a criticism - messes, when done right, can be just as much fun as a perfect movie made without flaw. I saw the movie opening day and knew that I wanted to see it again before being able to really write a review for it; I think I was too stunned and flabbergasted by what I'd seen, and didn't know if I really liked it or not. I still haven't been able to watch it again, but memory serves me well, and there's no doubt in my mind that this is one of the ballsiest, most original, and most interesting film of recent years.





I haven't read the graphic novel (a sin, I know), but I feel that Zack Snyder has done the best he could with the material. There was simply SO much to work with, and the fact that he condensed it into a 2.5 hour movie is nothing short of miraculous. Synder also made 300, probably my favourite film of 2007 (although the love for it has withered slightly over the years, so maybe I would place No Country or There Will Be Blood higher, now). What Synder does that I love so much is risk making the audience laugh at all the serious stuff he does. If he wants Simon and Garfunkel to play during a super-dramatic funeral, almost all of which is in over-the-top slow motion, then he'll do it. And yes, many people giggled. But it's so audacious that even when his risks don't completely work, I applaud him for it (which includes many of the song choices, which are fun but often extremely distracting). So from a technical standpoint, Watchmen completely delivers what most people were expecting - great special effects, several awesome action set pieces, good costumes and make-up, a crapload of blood and nudity, and a couple very worthy performances (especially Billy Crudup as Dr. Manhattan, one of the most fascinating characters of recent films, and Jackie Earl Haley as Rorscharch).





But the movie itself is not what audiences expected, and I think that's why it's not doing too well at the box office. The trailers promised a hardcore, violent action/adventure movie, and that's not really what Watchmen is about. The action, when it does come, is in short, violent bursts, and there really isn't very much of it. The movie is simply too dark, too introspective, and to be honest, too GOOD, for mainstream teenage audiences. On DVD, adults will discover this flick for themselves, and it'll do extremely well. It's more a film noir murder mystery than any superhero flick you've seen before, and the ethics, morales, psyche, and actions of superheroes are finally delved into in surpising depth. I found it extremely compelling.





I mentioned that the movie is a mess. And that it is. For all that's good with the film, there's still a lot of it that simply doesn't work too well. The nudity, while in the comic, becomes a large distraction (hee hee, nice pun). Narratively, the movie is perhaps a little too dense to really comprehend it all. The last act becomes sorta James Bond-ish, with the villian explaining his evil plot to the heroes for far longer than he should (although it certainly didn't end like most James Bond movies do). The twist involving this villian is not as surprising as the filmmakers probably would've wanted it to, and I guessed it fairly early on because Synder inadvertantly telegraphed it, quite obviously in my eyes, during a key violent scene. But the main reason the film isn't as perfect as it could've been is simply because it drags, quite a bit. During said funeral scene, we're treated to not one, not two, not even three, but FOUR flashbacks, if memory serves, and I also remember the audience beginning to laugh and shake their heads after the third one. There are long stretches where not much happens in the way of interest - a lot of character development, yes, but most of it isn't particularily interesting development, save for Dr. Manhattan and Rorsharch. At one point in the film I kept looking at my watch, wondering when the superheroes were actually gonna start doing superhero things.





But ultimately, by the end, those flaws didn't much matter. Watchmen is a superior entertainment because it risks alienating and boring so many, and for the most part, completely gets away with it. It's as epic and ballsy a film as you're likely to see, and despite some of my reservations, there's no denying that I was often enthralled, always intrigued, and can not wait to see it again. So far, it's the best film of 2009.

"But I don't want to JUST survive. Can't you understand that?"
It's with this quote (probably paraphrased slightly incorrectly) that The Road cuts straight to the heart of all post-apocalyptic movies. I know it's only two lines of dialogue, but for me, it's not only the most important quote of the film, it's also one I've been waiting years to hear. For some reasons, characters in post-apocalyptic films never said it. They take survival as a given - the world is now a shithole, and we must carry on and survive. There's never any doubt to that. But I've always watched these films and wondered - if I was in that position, would I even want to carry on? Would life be worth living if every day was a series of being cold and homeless, struggling to find any food or water, being hunted down by cannibals or Lord knows what else, while the rest of the world and all my friends/family are long dead? What about all my dreams and hopes and plans for my life, love, career, etc? When all those are dashed - what's left? Usually, no one in these films asks those questions. But characters in The Road do, and it helps explain why this movie, as harrowing, bleak, and depressing as it is, is one of the year's very best.

There's very little action in The Road. No big chase scenes, no impressive shoot outs, no climactic battles or fist fights. That's not what this film is about. Simply put, it's about a father and his son trying to survive, and being almost frighteningly realistic about their chances (he carries around a pistol with two bullets in it for himself and the boy if necessary, and in one especially harrowing scene, he's literally seconds away from killing his son to save him from torture and cannibalism). Most of the movie consists of these two walking around, scrounging for food and anything else that'll help them survive. Aided with director John Hillcoat's impressive and restrained photography and Nick Cave & Warren Ellis' beautiful and subtle score, their journey is far more haunting and interesting than it has any right to be.

Much has been made about the screenplay not living up to the poetic prose of the book by Cormac McCarthy. Having not read the book, I can state without bias that the movie is as effectively well written as I can imagine. If it isn't as sparsely wonderful as the book - well, too fucking bad. Books are books and movies are movies, and if you're looking for an intelligent, thoughtfully written film, it's hard to get much better this year than The Road. Every character speaks in a clear, concise voice - even the very minor roles filled out with surprisingly big names, like Robert Duvall, Guy Pierce, and Charlize Theron, all of whom have but a few minutes of camera time.

The rest of the film is shared between Viggo Mortensen and the young newcomer, Kodi Smit-McPhee. To say that both deserve Best Acting nominations is an understatement - yes, maybe starving people would look a little more, well...skinny. But they both deliver such powerhouse, emotionally stunning performances. There's never a scene without them, and we believe their relationship and their focus on survival the entire way (their comradre and closeness was evident when the film was premiered at TIFF, in that both could hardly stop hugging or holding each other. It was kinda sweet). And when these two are faced with their biggest hurdles - such as being confronted with a group of cannibals, or trapped in a house with several murderous psychopaths - they deal with it believably, without the use of Hollywood action hero horseshit. I dare anyone watching this movie to pinpoint a scene where either character acts out of the ordinary or does something that we don't completely believe they could do. And trust me - the final scenes between Viggo and Kodi will break your fucking heart.

So with all this praise, why only 4 stars? I'm not entirely sure. While hypnotic, fascinating, and deeply mature, there was still something missing from this film that I can't quite describe. A plot, perhaps? But then, the movie isn't about plot - it's about survival, and I kinda loved the glacial pace of the film. No, I think what the flick was missing most was an urgent coherency between scenes. They walk, they run into freaky killers or kindhearted strangers (never anyone in between), and then they keep on going. I suppose that, while realistic, gritty, and in a strange way kind of beautiful, the movie did become redundant after a while. But this is a minor nitpick, one which I suspect I'll care about less and less the more I watch the movie. The Road is not an easy film to watch - it's gruesome and pessimistic, and there's no good guys riding in to save the day. But if you can stomach the tough questions The Road asks, you're in for a treat this lame year for movies desperately needs.

For someone who has long stood alone as disliking Pixar, and even at times downright hating them, I'm happy to say that their latest feature, Up, charmed me to hell. It's a rather wonderful little flick, that got some big laughs, surprisingly exciting adventure scenes, and even made my eyes well up with some "manly mist". Yes, it's one of those flicks where you will laugh and cry, and although people have been saying that about Pixar's films for years, I can now finally agree with them. Up is their finest work yet, because for once they've grown up in terms of their stories and their characters, and not everything is cut out from the same stock cardboard that all of their other screenplays are from.

That's not to say the film is unpredictable. There's nothing in this film, from the friendship formed between cranky old man and talkative young child, to the resolution of the story and where the house will wind up, to who the bad guy will be, to what will become of the old geezer's favourite button, that is unpredictable or not easily seen from a mile away. But unlike other Pixar films, this time we grow to love the actual characters in the story so much, that we don't care about the formulas the script overuses at times. I loved Carl - after a beautiful opening 12 minute backstory about the death of his wife that was as adorable as it was heartbreaking, I was rooting for him all the way. I cared about what happened to this character, how his hopes and dreams came to be, unlike, say, the rat becoming a famous cook in the fucktastic Ratatouille. I loved the heroes and hated the villian, and in an animated movie, that goes a really long way.

I mentioned that Pixar seems to be growing up, and that it is. See, the main reason I so disliked Pixar for so many years is that their films were constantly being way overpraised. Looking back on it now, why did critics love A Bug's Life more than Antz? Why Monsters Inc more than Shrek? Why Incredibles more than Polar Express (this one really bothers me)? Hell, even Ratatouille was one of the best reviewed films of the year, and that one was so terrible me and my buds almost walked out half way through, something I've NEVER done. But with WALL-E (which also, in all fairness, was overpraised), they started trying to find characters that didn't exist in the same "outcast with a heart of gold who will prove to himself and others that family and friends are most important" mold that every other Pixar character has come from. WALL-E was charming and wonderful for the first half, but then devolved into the typical slapstick zany action scenes that all other animations become. Up, however, maintains it's focus. While I still hate animated humour where the punchline is "Oops", most of the laughs from this film came from surprisingly clever moments, and the action/adventure in the last half was quite exciting. This was all helped by the fact that unlike most animated flicks these days, there was true danger in the events. When Carl smacks a person on the head early in the film, blood actually comes out of his head. And when the surprisingly ruthless villian appears, he doesn't simply tie the good guys up and tell all his plans - he shoots at them, sicks dogs on them, and at one point even throws a little boy out of a flying blimp. He's a pretty villianous asshole, and that helps the adventure quotient, much like how the boring HAL-9000 type computer in WALL-E left me mostly disinterested.

So the last half is adventorous, but the first half is kinda beautiful...gentle...sweet and cute. These are things that will maybe make many kids anxious or antsy, and I'll admit that there are times early in the film where things start to lag. But once the balloons fly up, the magic of the film has got you. You'll be surprised how well utilized a floating house becomes - what could've been a one note idea is the basis for all the action or adventure scenes to follow, and it really works quite well. The animation is bright, colorful, and highly detailed, although nowhere near as eye-popping as WALL-E was (and the humans look kinda, well, plastic). While the plot is nonexistant - guys go there, come back, the end - the story itself is such a winner that you won't be upset. Even the fucking music is quite charming. On the whole, you won't be disappointed if you go see Up. While it's not the uber-masterpiece critics are saying it is, like always with Pixar, it's nevertheless their finest achievement. And yes, you probably will be misty in the end, when the balloons finally go down. Here is probably the first animated film since Polar Express that knows when to be magical, when to be serious, when to be dangerous, and when to be sweet and adorable. Hard to complain about that.

Final note: I saw the film in 3D, baked on top of it. As trippy as it was, I would've perferred to see it in standard 2D. When I flipped the glasses off momentarily, I could see how much brighter and zippier the colours and animations were without them, and to be honest....they just didn't do anything WITH the three dimensions. 3D is a cheap gimmick, no question, so they should save it for a movie that is actually a cheap gimmick itself, and knows how to use 3D in the most effective ways (like Monsters Vs. Aliens, which will probably suck in 2D). Up never has anything popping out at the screen or anything like that, so really, seeing it in 3D is a waste of the extra money and gyps you on the bright colours.

If last year could be called the Year of the Great Comic Book Movie, what with Dark Knight, Iron Man, and Incredible Hulk dominating theatre screens, then I think this year would have to be called the Year of the Great Animated Movie. Monsters Vs Aliens was the first to come out, and while the plot was weak, it was still trippy and entertaining. Then came Coraline, a wonderfully freaky movie; Up was next, which wowed everyone, and then Ponyo was released and became the best film of the year. Now we have Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs, which is hands down one of the funniest movies of 2009, and also one of the most hilarious and clever animated flicks I've ever seen. If you liked Clone High and Over the Hedge, then you'll love Meatballs.

I mention Clone High because the makers of that fantastic (and sadly short-lived) animated TV series are also the writers and directors of this film. That same brand of wacky, inventive, bizarre, hilariously random humour are on display again. So much of this movie shouldn't have been funny, but it was - Flint running through the house and smacking people with snowballs, Flint trying to explain to the girl he likes how to pronounce the name of his computer, Flint's dad (James Caan) forcing him to look into his eyes, and especially the character Mr. T plays, who shouts the most hilarious and random things (like "You're a shenanigan-izer!") and had me literally holding my sides with laughter.

The story is fairly average stuff, I guess, for a children's movie. Outcast inventor finally makes great invention, it turns on him, and he has to stop it to save the town. But the originality is in the jokes, and the people who tell the jokes. On paper, Flint may not sound like that creative of a lead role, but the animation is so trippy, the writing is so zippy, and Bill Hader voices him with so much energy, that we fall in love with him almost immediately and desperately want him to succeed. The vocal talents throughout the film are pitch perfect, primarily because I didn't recognize a single voice (except Mr. T's of course - the throwaway gag of his character's hair being the opposite of his real life style helped), until the end credits rolled. That's a good thing. Lately animated movies are so obsessed with getting butts in the seats that they'll fill every role with huge stars with instantly recognizable voices, and it always takes me out - remember the good ol' days when the most famous name in an animated movie was the fat guy from MASH? While there are big names in Meatballs, they're hidden into their characters, and I was very happy with that.

In short, this movie has everything for just about everyone. There's colourful action, great animation, a cute love story that's more sweet than we expect, some good old fashioned family values for the kids, and so many funny jokes ranging from slapstick to perfect satire (pay attention to the newscaster's reports once the storm hits). I loved this movie, and I hope the Year of Great Animation continues for the next few months. By the way, the 3D presentation of this movie is probably the best I've ever seen. The colours weren't overly dimmed, and unlike Up, there was a REASON for it to be in 3D, although it wasn't as gimmicky as Monsters Vs Aliens. The image was crisp and from where I was sitting, there were hardly any double images (plus I saw it zonked out of my mind, so that probably helped). Long story short - highly recommended, and this year's best surprise.

My dad's reaction upon leaving Star Trek was "What more could you want in a movie?" and in a way, I have to agree with him. This flick has it all - adventure, action, comedy, romance, spaceships blowing shit up, and a hot green alien. Like he said - what more could you want? Well, a better script, maybe. I'm becoming a bit of a broken record apparently, in that every one of my reviews of this summer's movies have complained about the screenplays. However, after the disappointment that was Terminator Salvation and the unmitigated disaster that was Wolverine, Star Trek is far and away the best film and best script of the bunch. If it has it's problems, well, so does almost every movie. The main thing to take away from it is that Star Trek is a load of fun for the entire family - not something you see in the cinemas too often.

Despite being born and raised in a town called Vulcan (and yes, we have an annual Spock Days), I've never given a rats ass about Star Trek. The TV shows bored me, the movies were all mediocre, and the "lore", as it were, was far less interesting to me than Star Wars. However, in the battle of the new movies, this Star Trek surely beats out anything George Lucas has made since Return of the Jedi. It must've taken a considerable amount of time and energy on the part of the filmmakers to craft an adventure that felt both new and familiar, with characters that both went in different and exciting directions while still maintaining the old feel and tone. But feel and tone is what this Star Trek has in spades - like all the previous Trek incarnations, it never takes itself or it's world too seriously, even in the face of grave danger. Watching this film is 2 hours of pure enjoyment.

The acting is pretty much perfect - no one in the cast I would complain about, save maybe a slightly annoying Anton Yelchin as Chekov. Chris Pine has Kirk exactly right; cocky, brash, slightly arrogant but with a friendly heart. The new Spock, Scotty, and Sulu were also all damn good, along with a super foxy Uhura played by Zoe Saldana (if you think she's hot in this movie, check her out as Mila Kunis' lesbian lover in After Sex, if you can find it. Jizzums everywhere). The best, however, has to be Karl Urban as Dr. McCoy. He gets him absolutely note-perfect - his mannerisms, his voice, even his raised eyebrows are all dead on Bones. But the important thing is that these new, young actors manage to do the nearly impossible by inhabiting the skin and character of someone we all know, but not making it a simple immitation.

J.J. Abrams is the director, and he's quickly becoming one of the hottest new directors in Hollywood. You can see why in Star Trek. Clearly, this man loves making movies, and his exuberance and excitement practically bounce off the screen. He loves moving his camera, which I'm all in favour of (although there were actually times during this movie I almost wanted the camera to NOT pan and dolly around a character, which is not something I've said too often before). He manages to handle both the quiet moments and the big, epic action special effects sequences well (especially the CGI, which is probably the most impressive work as such of the summer). If there is one complaint about his work, it's the use of solar flares in almost every damn shot in the film. I know why he used them; in an article that came out a week or so ago, he explained that it was to not confine the starships, to make it seem like it was all open and wide and vast and new. But then, he also quickly admitted he overused the effect, and it's true - hardly a moment goes by in the film without a bright flare bursting through the lens and blinding us. But it's a small quibble.

I mentioned the screenplay. While doing a very difficult task of assembling all these characters into a new adventure and introducing us to them effectively, it's not as grand as it could have been. A lot of quieter dialogue-driven moments fall flat, such as Spock's discussions with his mother and father. The romantic triangle of Kirk-Uhuru-Spock is not handled well, perhaps because of much of it being left on the editing room floor (Uhuru kisses Spock literally out of nowhere, and by the next scene they share, they already appear to be lovers). And Nero, the main baddie (probably the most badass I've seen in a Star Trek flick since Khan), is sadly underwritten. However, the time travel paradoxes/subplot in the film, which was confusing and irritating on first viewing, now make much more sense. In fact, the whole use of the black hole/alternate timeline thing not only gaps many of the big plot holes this would otherwise make, but actually creates the perfect excuse for this new brand of Star Trek sequels - if this is an alternate reality, anything can go, so unlike the fate of many prequels, not every character is necessarily safe from death just because he's appeared in an earlier film, and not everything has to happen exactly as it should so the previous flicks make sense.

Anyways, my complaints are small. While I didn't love Star Trek, I heedlessly enjoyed it. It's a pretty grand entertainment with heroic, bombastic music, some amazing cinematography and special effects, perfect performances, and very nifty action sequences (although I'll admit that I was more interested in simple shots like the Enterprise floating out of a moon or warping through a black hole than I was in a fist fight or shoot out). It's not the best film of the year, but without a doubt the best of the summer so far.

It's heartbreaking, watching Funny People. To see a movie go so right, and then go so wrong...it's tough. Painful, even. True, the last half is not, like, the worst thing in the world. But compared to the brilliant and damn near perfect first half, it's a disappointment on rather epic levels. If Funny People had continued in the same sort of tradition as the initial hour and a half, this could have been one of, if not the, best film of the year. As it stands, it's a messy, dramatic, occasionally funny meander in Judd Apatow's career - one that could have been worse, but also could have been much better.

I'd read all the reviews before seeing the movie. I knew going in that Apatow took a different direction with this film, one he's been edging up on with 40 Year Old Virgin and Knocked Up, his last two movies as writer/director. I'd heard that he was going much more dramatically - and I had also heard that the story completely loses it's way after the midpoint. In an interview, Apatow discussed how he wanted the film to actually be about a man who simply doesn't learn from a near-death experience. That's all good and fine, but as a narrative, it just doesn't work. Once we find out (spoiler warning) that Adam Sandler is getting better and won't actually die from the disease that riddled him before, there's no juice left in the story; nowhere else to go. The dangerous and problematic thing was that we were never really made to care about George - he's a miserable, stubborn, awful prick the whole first half, and doesn't change until the last five minutes. I loved that about the movie, when I thought he was going to die. But to see a film be completely about this man's mortality and the world of stand-up comedy, only to then become competely focused on a soap opera love triangle....it's pretty rough, and just doesn't work.

Having said that, there is still much to praise about the film. Without a moment's thought, this is by far the best movie Adam Sandler has ever been involved with. His performance is actually Oscar worthy - George is a total asshole with a lot of pain underneath, and his portrayal is so well done that I actually wouldn't be surprised if this is, at least partially, autobiographical (if nothing else, the movie makes malicious fun at his career and his own crappy movies). The other performances are all strong too - Leslie Mann, Apatow's wife, is very good, and I loved Seth Rogen as a star struck comedian. When the movie focuses on the world of stand up, it's at it's most comfortable. Seeing a train wreck on stage can be as interesting as a really hilarious act, and Apatow gives us plenty of both. The first hour is actually much funnier than the reviews would have had you to believe, and there's a lot of great one-liners. But it's also a strong film dramatically. We become very interested in George's life, and invested with his relationship with Ira. It's this relationship that's key to the film - not the one to his ex-lover, which is a sappy and meandering storyline that dominates the last half of the film and threatens to sink it under.

But...after all is said and done, this is still a movie worth watching. You'll laugh and you'll be moved, and hell, you'll even get quite frustrated with the (overly long) film to boot. No, it does not compare to the brilliance of 40 Year Old Virgin, still my favourite comedy of all time. But I think I like it better than Knocked Up. True, it's not as funny and the story takes even longer and stranger detours than the previous film did. But as a whole, it's a stronger, more mature work, and the cinematography by Januz Kaminski (Steven Spielberg's guy) is stunning; way better than any other comedy I think I've ever seen. So yes, the last 45 minutes is a disappointment. But my God, what a brilliant film it was before this. If Apatow had a ruthless editor for once, he might be able to once again create a great film.

Note: the following review is based on the downloaded version I saw of the movie. Apparently it's already released on DVD in Europe, even though it's only now going into theatres in North America. I just read that it's PG-13 here, but I would be literally shocked if the version I saw was the same PG-13 cut in US theatres. What I saw was bloody, intense, and filled to the brim with R rated violence. Anyhoo, moving on.

Remember that brutal, violent, shockingly graphic fight scene in the shower room in Eastern Promises? Y'know, the scene where Viggo showed us all his Mortensens. Well, imagine that scene stretched out for 90 minutes, and you'd have Taken. After a long introduction, the film rarely takes a break from Liam Neeson beating the living shit out of everyone around him. Many of you will not find this remotely entertaining. Me - I couldn't get enough of it. Of all the elderly stars of modern cinema, Neeson was one of the ones most deserving of a super badass action movie, and now he's got it. If harsh, brutal, graphic depictions of action/violence are your thing, then it's hard to believe there's a better movie for you in theatres right now.

If you've seen the trailer for Taken, you pretty much know what to expect, and if that trailer didn't intice you at all, avoid the movie. I guess the best comparison I can think of is if David Croenenberg directed a Jason Bourne movie. The requisite chases and action are there, but they're filled to the brim with such shocking, jaw-dropping, highly original violence. The blood and gore level of the film is surprisingly high - Liam Neeson is the ultimate badass in this movie, and takes no prisoners. Indeed, the primary entertainment to be taken from the movie is seeing the various and interesting ways Neeson will easily dispatch villian after villian. We see him torture men, beat the living snot out of them, stab them and shoot them and gas them and crack their bodies into pieces. All excessive, all over the top - but a helluva fun time throughout. The movie even gives what was a first to me - a hero of an action film who actually shoots a woman in the arm in order to extract information; and the info he wanted wasn't even from her, but from her husband. Never saw James Bond do that.

I seem to only be congratulating the movie so far on it's action and violence, and nothing else. Well, in a way, that's kinda true. Certainly, the movie is not given a very good screenplay. The opening act drags on for a loooong time. Dialogue is usually only for expository reasons. Once Liam's character begins the chase to find his daughter, the tension is obviously ratcheded up, but because character development was so emotionally miniscule, we care more about Liam whooping ass then we do about wether or not he'll find his girl. And truth be told, the plot is all over the place during the chase, with Neeson getting clues and acting on them in even more preposterous ways than Bourne did. But ultimately, I didn't care much about the flaws. I seem to be giving movies a pass for being supremely "badass" more often lately than before (like Death Race), even if I know the rest of it isn't very good. I guess it makes sense - I am a teenage male, after all. And Taken, seen in a room filled with testorone-fueled guys (and one very forgiving girlfriend), is a blast. The flaws are clearly there, but the movie is so fast-paced and unrelentingly angry that you scarcely have time to notice. And Liam Neeson, again, is the ultimate badass in this flick. One small nudge, he'd be Anton Chigurh; especially when you see just how high the body count is from this one old Irish dude wreaking havoc.

Ultimately, as redundant as this review has been, I feel I've accurately described the movie to you. If you enjoy gritty yet excessive violence, then you'll be just as entertained as I was. If you don't, then you won't, and it'd be best to go find Slumdog Millionaire or something. The reason I think it got such bad reviews here (and took so long to reach theatres) is simply because this is an action movie where the hero is not a very good guy - he'll do whatever it takes to save his daughter, and none of it is very PG-13 friendly. Taken is essentially one long fight, puncuated by an occasional chase, and it's all a massive showcase for just how frighteningly awesome Liam Nesson is, when pissed off enough. Take it or leave it at that.

Note: My apologies to anyone who reads my reviews that it's taken so long to write a new one. I've been extremely busy with schoolwork, but I also kinda gave up writing them, because I know very few people read these and I've already written 200 pages worth of reviews - seems like kind of a waste. But I'm annoyed watching movies and not being able to write reviews on them, so fuck it, I'm (at least temporarily) back.

A Christmas Carol is probably the creepiest Christmas movie I've ever seen. This is both a positive and a negative attribute. I'll admit that it was one of my most anticipated movies of the year - Polar Express is in my top 15 movies of all time, and I thought (not without merit) that this would be very much like it. It gets the visual wonder, splendor, and trippiness right, but in terms of spreading jolly Christmas cheer, this movie is like a cold lump of coal in your stocking. As I said, it's an absolute treat for the eyes, and you'll probably become more invested, scared, and enthralled than you expect. But you won't feel good. And kids will have the absolute shit freaked out of them.

I've never read the book A Christmas Carol (because who the fuck reads anymore?), and I admittedly haven't seen too many versions. I believe The Muppet Christmas Carol is the one I'm most familiar with, and I remember even that one scaring and disturbing me as a little kid. If that one is creepy, than this version is nightmare inducing. Robert Zemekis knows how to not only ratchet up suspense (such as when the ghost of Bob Marley is about to visit Scrooge), but also to show terrifying images popping out at you in 3D when you least expect it. No longer does Scrooge see the face of Bob on his doorknob - now, he sees a ghostly, demonic apparition, green and hair floating, eyes cold and dark and his mouth screaming out at him. No longer is the Ghost of Christmas Present a jolly red haired Santa - now, he has little demon kids under his robes, and when he dies he laughs manically as his skin dissolves away until he's nothing more than a laughing skeleton. And don't even get me started on the Ghost of Christmas bloody Future! This movie will probably appeal to adults and teens much more than kids (especially because of the numerous action scenes), because I can't imagine too many children finding any aspect of this movie "fun". It's dark, it's freaky, and if you watch it in 3D, you'll probably jump out of your seat.

So far, all I seem to have done is talk about the movie's terror aspects. That's because it was the only thing that, strangely, really impressed me. I didn't like it, but I was stunned at the balls Zemekis and Disney had. Visually, the film is absolutely sumptuous. A lot of people complain about the photo-capture animation Zemekis uses, and how it gives everyone cold, "dead eye" expressions. I won't argue that. What I will say is that it's all worth it, because without this animation, Zemekis wouldn't be able to show off his camera like he does. He actually creates a Brian De Palma animated movie here - the camera swoops, flies, zooms, tracks in and around whole rooms while people are talking. The opening scene of the camera soaring through London has been deservedly high praised, and that's the kind of thing he couldn't have done with live action. Every take in this movie is an amazing long take, because he can, and that's what I love most about this animated style.

The screenplay is probably the film's biggest problem. It drags, and quite simply, it can often get boring. The opening 20 minutes are so slow, with Scrooge being visited with not one, not two, but THREE people, all in the same room right after each other, that I almost passed out. And if pacing is a big issue, so is the dialogue - words are taken right out of the early 20th century text, and to be honest I often didn't know what the hell people were talking about. It sounded almost Shakespearean to me, and that didn't help when it came to recognizing and having sympathy for the characters. But all in all, A Christmas Carol is definitely a movie worth seeing, especially on 3D screens (and most especially baked). Emotionally, it will leave you cold, which is why I think word of mouth will not be anywhere near as good as the wonderful and beautiful Polar Express was. But aesthetically, and as an animated adventure, it continues the tradition of 2009 to be only a disappointing year for live action films, and a revolutionary year for animated ones.

Inglorious Basterds is a very good movie that could've been great, should've been great, has moments of greatness - but is ultimately sqaushed down by Tarantino's annoying ego and self-worship. A shame, because there is a lot to admire here, and even with it's many flaws, it's still by far the best movie Tarantino's done since Pulp Fiction (Jackie Brown sucked, the Kill Bill movies dragged endlessly, and the less said about the embarassing Death Proof the better). The movie is seperated into 5 chapters; the first two chapters are absolutely brilliant, the third is a tedious, endlessly dull travesty, the fourth has 30 minutes of mind-numbing boredom puncuated at the end with 30 seconds of awesome violence, and the last chapter finally brings it all together and culminates in excellence. So, basically - the movie is two-thirds awesome, one-third terrible. Take that as you will.

If there's one thing that's always there to admire about Tarantino's work - love it or hate it, you know that he's swinging for the fences, and going balls to the walls. He never makes timid films, and for that I guess we should be grateful. He revels in breaking both our expectations and the "rules" most narrative films seem to always follow - the second chapter especially enjoys playing and toying with these established conventions, and by the time I heard Samuel L. Jackson deliver a brief voice over about one of the Basterds, I simply smiled and relished in Tarantino's act. The problem with his methods are that when they hit, such as with Pulp Fiction and Reservoir Dogs, then there's few filmmakers more interesting than him. But when he misses, such as the shittastic Death Proof and Jackie Brown, then his films are tedious exercises in watching smart people try to out-dialogue each other for endless hours. Inglorious Basterds gives us both of these Tarantino's, which makes it a highly frustrating, entertaining mess.

If there's one thing that could've really helped the film, it's an editor Tarantino would've actually listened to. Because this great editor would've wisely pulled him aside and said "Look, we all know you're in love with your dialogue - but in the middle of an otherwise exciting WW2 movie, an hour of straight, boring, uninspired dialogue will kill your movie". And indeed, it almost does. When this flick comes out on DVD, I'm going to fast forward through pretty much the entire third chapter and most of the fourth, and wind up with a masterpiece on my hands. It's not so much that these middle segments are dull - it's that they're dull with the WRONG PEOPLE. I knew going into the movie that the Basterds themselves had surprisingly little screentime in the film, but I was Ok with that as long as Tarantino wrote characters as interesting and enjoyable as the Basterds to replace them with. He didn't do that. The main characters of the third and fourth chapters have the personalities of wallpaper, and their "brilliant Tarantino dialogue" is surprisingly inert and lifeless (also not helped by the fact that 70% of this movie is subtitled, which is bad for a Taraninto flick since half the fun in his wordplay are in the delivery, and that juice is severely sucked out when you're reading the words on the bottom of the screen). If this movie had more Basterds and less dialogue, it could've been great.

But I should stop criticizing the movie for what I wish it was instead of praising what we actually got. As I said before, there's a lot of good stuff going on here. The suspense before a moment of violence, and the shockingly graphic depictions of violence themselves, are pure Tarantino, with a flair of Hitchcock and DePalma thrown in for good measure. These sequences are always entertaining, and the moments of black comedy (usually associated with the film's best and most horrific character played by Christophe Waltz), are brilliant. The casting is especially eye-opening, with some of the strangest decisions you're likely to see (Brad Pitt, Mike Myers, Eli Roth, and Ryan from The Office...what a cast, eh?). In fact, I'll go so far as to say that Quentin has become a better director than a writer - everytime he stepped aside from himself and just let the passion of filmmaking overcome his incessant demand to have his characters never shut the fuck up, the movie really worked. The camerawork in the film is never showy, yet always visually pleasing, and if the Basterds had more screentime and their actions against the Nazi's not been so truncated (seriously, the stuff you see them do in the trailers are all they do in the movie, too), then we really could've had something here. Actually, they do MORE in the trailers than in the film. You remember that awesome shot of a Basterd running around with a machine gun, firing the shit out of the place? I remember it too, and waited the whole fucking movie for that sweet scene, but for some mysterious reason, it's been cut out. A real shame.

Ah, but I'm bitching again, and that's not something I should be doing so much of in a 3.5 star review. Inglorious Basterds is viscereal, hilarious, violent, and excitingly alive when it deals with it's title characters. When any other character is on screen, the film withers and whimpers (cept for Christophe, of course). While it may not be the masterpiece critics and some audience members (mostly pretentious film students) are telling you, this is an often-times exceptional and audacious mess. And any war movie that can actually end with Hitler being shot to shit and blown to bits has to be worth a look, right?

If you've watched the trailer for Crank: High Voltage, or read any reviews, or even just glanced at the poster, then you probably know wether you're the kind of person who will like this movie or not. Love it or hate it, there's no denying that there has never quite been a movie like the Crank films. They exist in a category all of their own. If Looney Tunes and Shoot 'Em Up had a baby, which was then molested by Christopher Walken and cranked up to 11 like the amp in Spinal Tap, the result would be the Crank flicks. When Chev Chelios, the main character played by Jason Statham, gives the audience the middle finger in the last shot of this movie, it's not merely there to make us laugh - it represents the filmmakers themselves, gladly flipping all of us the bird and daring us not to enjoy the chaotic mess that is Crank High Voltage.

Well, I couldn't take them up on their offer. I had a ball watching Crank 2, although not as much as the first one (what was incredibly inventive and ridiculous the first time around becomes a little more stale and predictable come round 2). As I said before, there's never been an action movie or comedy quite like this. When critics take the film too seriously by damning it as disorganized or headache inducing or misogynstic, they're really just telling everyone exactly what the filmmakers already know, and want, and show off. Of COURSE the movie is a mess. Of COURSE it's violent, profane, offensive, retarded, ridiculous, misogynstic, and racist. What did people expect - It's a Wonderful Life? The more flaws this movie willingly provoked in itself, the more I couldn't stop laughing. This is easily one of the funniest flicks of the year, and if you're willing to subject yourself to this kind of material, you'll probably find it just as funny as I did.

So what kind of material are we talking about, exactly? How can I even describe Crank? There is no overarching purpose, or theme, or point or message. It's just frantic, kinetic energy, shot after shot, scene after scene. The camera whirls and twirls and zips and zaps with almost no rythm. Every camera trick in the book is thrown out at us, and then some - there's flashbacks, flashforwards, split screens, slow motion, fast motion, and dozens more. The use of subtitles results in some of the funniest moments, such as when Chev is knocked unconcious and all we see are various fonts of the words "FUCK YOU CHRIS CHELIOS" over and over again, or how none of Bai Ling's lines are without subtitles, even though she's speaking English. One particularily creative sequence replaces the standard final fist fight between Chelios and an Asian villian by making them suddenly large monsters ala Godilla Vs. King Kong. The visual inventiveness in this movie is neverending - imagine MTV mixed with David Fincher and Kevin Smith, and you have some sort of idea of what this film is like. It's supposed to give you a headache - it's supposed to piss you off. There's never a moment's rest; the entire film is Chev Chelios running after or shooting at people, while they do the same to him. Even the action scenes are filmed so chaotically and frenetically that you can hardly tell what's going on. And the dialogue is side-splittingly funny - name me a better one liner this year after a murder, where the killer then says "Chicken and broccoli!"

And yet, none of this is criticism. This is what the directors, Neveldine and Taylor, want and accomplish. That they were able to pull this off not only once, but twice, is kind of amazing, even though it didn't really need to be done ever, at all. I mentioned before the criticisms that this film usually gets, often revolving around people not really getting that this is supposed to be the most annoying and offensive action/comedy ever made. Sure, Chev and every other guy treats all the women in this film (who are almost all strippers or hookers), like trash. But then, the guys are all treated like trash, too. Because the whole MOVIE is trash - glorious, hilarious trash. And, in a way, even kinda sexy ? Amy Smart reprises her stripper role from the first flick, and gawdDAMN is she hot in this movie, especially when her and Statham perform sex on a public race track and perform pretty much every position known to man. The violence is especially cringe inducing, such as when a man has to cut off his own nipples, or another man's elbow is sliced off, or when Chev's heart is removed and his balls electrocuted. Have you ever seen a gangster anally raped by a shotgun in order for the hero to recieve information? Neither have I, and somehow, I doubt I never will again after Crank 2.

So all in all - is this a movie worth seeing? Will you like it? Chances are you probably won't. This sort of visual and aesthetic migraine is not something easily enjoyed by most. But if you can handle all the shit and see the fun and enjoyment behind it, then you'll have a blast. Let me describe at least one scene for you in detail. In the middle of a shoot out/chase scene, we suddenly cut to a man in a therapist session. He's revealed to be a doctor Chev pointed his gun at in the earlier Crank film. He talks about how scared he is of living his life, knowing that psycho is still around. His therapist, obviously a sex crazed maniac, is telling him he needs to go out there, fuck some hotties, bang some pussy, get all crazy and dirty. He replies that he does need to go live his life, and "floss my teeth with some pubes!" He then stands up, and a stray bullet from the previous shoot out fires through the window and blows a hole in his head, which then makes the therapist puke all over the camera. If that didn't evoke any sort of smile or chuckle from you, then for God sakes, avoid Crank: High Voltage.

There's so much brilliance to be found in Enter the Void, that it's literally painful to see it sharing screen space with so much horseshit. This won't be a popular review (like any of mine are...seriously, does anyone still read these fuckers?), primarily because most of you have never heard of this movie, or will never get to see this movie, or just plain would never WANT to see this movie. But because the experience of watching it was so frustrating, and because I know that regardless of it's anti-box office chances and next to nothing odds it'll be in a DVD store anytime soon, it will still be seen and studied by film students for years and maybe decades to come. This is one of the most interesting and ballsy films I've ever seen in terms of direction - if there was also a writer and editor on board to go along with it, it could've been a masterpiece. Imagine Pi mixed with Mulholland Drive, Blue Velvet, and Speed Racer, and that's what Enter the Void is like.

The conceit of Enter the Void was infamous in Toronto, and it is a good one, if you're a brave and daring filmgoer. Here's a breakdown of the flick, so you know kind of what you're getting into. The opening, oh, 20 minutes of the film are all from the POV of the main character's eyes (the camera even blinks, according to him). With the exception of a long, incredibly trippy CGI sequence after he gets high, most of these are done in very long takes. He goes on a drug deal, and is shot by the police, and he actually dies. The camera then remains it's POV, but this time as his actual soul, as it floats up and witnesses events and people he normally wouldn't be able to see, as the camera soars across the city, flies into and out of buildings and even other people's minds. This goes on for probably 30 minutes, then it's flashback time, where we basically see the entire life of the main character, with the camera always standing behind him, filming the back of his head along with everything he sees. These three segments were disturbing, difficult, obtuse, even pretentious - but, my God, did they blow my mind. The director, Gaspar Noe, shows us sights and visuals and EMOTIONS on screen that I'd never seen before, and didn't even think possible. Sure, the screenplay was nothing revolutionary, and very little of the dialogue said was intriguing in any way. But visually, I was stunned. In short - the first half of the film is absolutely brilliant. A shame, then, that the last half is so painfully tortorous and unendurable.

After this overly-long flashback segment, the camera once again becomes the Soul's POV, which was annoying because after three such majorly different and original viewpoints, it was disappointing to go back to one we'd already seen before in the film. But the problem wasn't the POV - the problem was that this soul segment went on FOREVER. It was a tortorous experiment, one where so many people in the audience walked out that I think we all were wondering if a sick game was being played. The camera flies into a bright light, strobe effects or CGI happens, the camera floats out and watches a scene from the soul's POV, then things get trippy, flies back into a bright light, and repeats. This goes on for over an hour. Do you have any idea how tedious this became? How laborious and pretentious and just so gawdawfully avant-garde this was? Yes, the visuals were still sumptous, and in terms of representing what death could actually be like, this nightmarish portion was probably dead on (the most thought provoking element of the film is wondering if this really is what death is like; because surely, it's not as easy and painless as Christians would have us believe). But there comes a point where your experiment is only effective the first couple of times we see it; when the flick was nearing on 3 hours long, and it was almost 1 in the morning, most of us in the audience wound up simply groaning and moaning, wondering when it would all end. And everytime the perfect ending was found - well, the film STILL kept going, until we got to watch a sexually explicit 15 minute orgy scene with neon lights and CGI trippiness, then ending in a POV shot inside the vagina as a dick fucks it and impregnates it. Ugh.

So ultimately, what's it all about? What's the director saying? I have no idea. That death really sucks, I suppose. As an experience into the mindset of a druggie and someone who just died, the film is brilliant, evocative, and absolutely, completely disturbing. But as a movie-going experience, it's arduous and not something most people will like (or even just admire - "like" is a term that I don't think even fans of the film can attribute to it). I said that film students will watch this film for years to come, and that's true. The visuals and cinematography and use of special effects and camera work are simply too astounding to ignore. But the extremely pornographic moments, the exhausting running time, and the repetitive and frustrating redundancy of the last hour will mean finding this film anywhere, in theatres or DVD, will be difficult. But for all the crap that this movie contains, there is indeed a lot of talent, and a lot worth watching for the brave souls out there. I give the first half 4 stars, and the last half 2 stars. The medium is 3, so take that as you will.

Public Enemies is a good film that by all accounts should have been a great film. What a pedigree it has - two of the biggest male stars on the planet, an Oscar winning actress, and one of the coolest directors around, Michael Mann. So what happened? Suffice it to say, I think I'm going to label this summer as The Season of Mediocre Screenplays. Seriously, when was the last time almost every single movie of the year, even the GOOD ones, are hampered with cliched, predictable, confused, muddled, or simply poorly written scripts? It shouldn't be that hard to write a good one. Public Enemies doesn't have as bad a script as, say, Angels and Demons, but it just goes all over the place, and limits what greatness this film might've had.

That's not to say every other element of production is without fault. Michael Mann once again shoots the entire film in HD video, as he did with Collateral and Miami Vice. It worked in those films, because they were gritty, urban, modern action/thrillers. This is a period piece drama, set in the 30's. Having everything look like it was made in film school by amateur cinematographers doesn't help matters at all. I still love Mann, and there's no denying he directs the film well. But there's not a single shot in the film where I couldn't notice, obviously and clearly, that he was using digital video, and it cheapened the entire production. It doesn't help that he shoots almost the entire flick in handheld documentary style, either, because handheld is HD video's kryptonite - it blurs whenever it moves, it mutes the colours, it shakes things up more than it should. In short - the digital photography of this film sucks. If Mann had used film, I probably would've felt nicer towards it.

The acting is also a disappointment. Johnny Depp is fine, I guess, but his performance is curiously muted. We never see John Dillinger seem to take any joy or excitement in robbing banks, and that's exactly the kind of attitude we expect and deserve from a live wire like Depp. Christian Bale's performance is his second one of the year that's solid enough, but is for such an underused, underwritten character, that you wonder why they bothered to get Christian Bale at all. ANY actor could've played this part, and considering he's hardly even in the movie, I'm surprised this wasn't pursued. The other actors, like Billy Crudup and Marion Cottliard, do what they can with their small roles, Marion being the most impressive. But ultimately, every single character is given short thrift in the script - we never fully understand them, sympathize with them, or grow to really care for them. The only element of emotional resonance is the love story between Depp and Cottliard, and even that isn't given much depth or weight.

The first half of the film is pretty bad, I'm sad to say. It's choppy, it's all over the place, and at some points it's even inexplicably confusing (Dillinger is caught literally right out of nowhere, and it's never explained how the cops found him - it was so out of nowhere I almost complained to the theatre usher, because I thought they somehow missed a reel). Thankfully, the last half of the film redeems the entire movie. Within the last hour, the tension is ratcheted up, and we wind up pseudo-caring about what happens to Dillinger. The finale of the film, at the theatre, is especially wonderful, and is filmed and edited just about perfectly. There are a lot of action scenes in the film (always coupled with Mann's trademark gritty, bloody, sudden violence), and they're all spectacular (still would've been better if they'd been on film, but oh well). There's shoot outs, chase scenes, and all the while Mann choreographs them so we never are confused, even admist total confusion (if that makes any sense). I'd sooner take a realistic and gritty shoot out like the ones seen in Public Enemies than the CGI, cartoony bullshit fight scenes in Wolverine.

So yeah, overall, I'm gonna recommend this flick. There's a lot of good scenes here - the finale, the action material, some wonderfully timed suspense sequences (like the never ending red light, or the moment in the movie theatre when Dillinger is almost caught). And even though Depp underplays the character, Dillinger himself is such a strange, interesting enigma that it's hard not to be interested in the last few months of his life, especially when he's breaking out of prisons or actually walking straight into the FBI offices dedicated to tracking him down (it makes sense that he was apparently very well endowed - he HAD to have big balls to pull off this shit). So while there's a lot to recommend, I sadly have to say that I was disappointed that the film was only good, instead of great. Anyone expecting another Collateral or Heat will be underwhelmed - those movies gave us the great action, but also literate, eloquent screenplays, that had an organized structure to the plots and characters worth giving a damn about. Public Enemies an occasionally fun and enjoyable movie, especially after the mediocre first hour, but the entire enterprise is curiously flat, and in a Michael Mann gangster film starring Johnny Depp, that's the last criticism I expected to make about it.

Final Note: as harsh as this review seems, I think this might be one of those films that you gain appreciation for after several viewings. I think on DVD, the lame digital cinematography will be less noticeable, and lowered expectations might make this become a 3.5 star film someday.

The Taking of Pelham 123 is one of those movies you hugely enjoy while it's playing out, then as the minutes pass afterwards, and those minutes become hours, and those hours become days, you slowly start to realize that maybe it wasn't all that good after all. When leaving the theatre, I was fairly convinced I had seen a 3.5 star movie - sure, the direction was gawdawful and the last half hour devolved into predictable summer action blockbuster stuff. But there was a lot of praiseworthy elements to the film, and the first 3/4's were tense, suspenseful, and didn't insult my intelligence. Those are all still true, but on retrospect I find that the film isn't really as strong when you look back at it and realize that after it was all said and done, it really wasn't nearly as unpredictable or uncliched as you thought, and hoped, it was while it was playing.

That the film managed to succeed at all is a high tribute to the lead actors, Denzel Washington and John Travolta, and the screenwriter, Brian Helgeland. Washington dials down his persona so much we actually do forget we're watching Denzel Washington, and we're merely seeing an ordinary guy, caught up in a rather extraordinary situation. John Travolta, on the other hand, dials everything way up, so much so that we can tell he's having a lot of fun with the character, and so we do too. I haven't seen him play this much of a foaming-at-the-mouth villian since Face/Off, which is still one of my most favourite action films ever. They're both effective, believeable, and most importantly, interesting to watch. The screenplay never gives what we could call a memorable line of dialogue, persay, but unlike many recent blockbusters, I never once winced at a line, or a scene, really, in terms of what was happening with the writing. It's solid throughout, not giving us too much backstory or motivation for anyone, and allowing them, for the most part, to wallow in mystery.

The best part about the film, however, was something I didn't notice until John Turturro came onto the screen about midway through the film. He's the terrorist negotiator who arrives at the subway control center some time after the initial hostage threat. What we expect from this kind of character is the over-the-top cliched public servant we've seen so many times in the movies - he'll wind up being a dick to our hero, not believing anyone, and putting the hostages in danger just so the screenplay can cause more conflict. But then, an amazing thing happened. He just wanted to help. He came in, listened to all the information Washington had for him, made some good decisions, made some bad decisions, and decided to do his best to help Washington succeed in saving the hostages for the rest of the film. In short - he was 100% believeable, a flawed man that nevertheless wanted to do his job as well as possible. And that's when I realized that even when the screws of the action/thriller ideal start to turn in the plot, the characters still remain grounded in reality. Even James Gandolfini, as the slimy mayor, winds up making some important realizations of his own, and he too is confused and troubled by the events of the flick.

Alas, the film sidesteps greatness because of two main reasons - the director, and the ending. There's nothing really wrong with the last act while it's playing, because by then you're caught up in the excitement of the plot and want to see what happens to these characters we've invested in. But still, even then, while it was happening I slowly said to myself "Shit...I've seen all this before". What is for 3/4's of the movie a surprisingly and hugely effective cat-and-mouse game played with low key suspense, tension, and violent tautness, then devolves into standard action thriller territory, complete with shoot-outs and a car chase. It's done well enough, but it shouldn't have been done at all. As for the direction of the film, the less said the better. Tony Scott apparently is stuck in a time warp, where he still thinks that we want to see our films like we saw our early 90's music videos. He uses cheesy zooms and shaky slow-mo pans and whips and all sorts of ridiculous nonsense, which is thankfully a little less overdone than in Domino, but still highly annoying, overcooked, overdirected, outdated, and ultimately completely distracting. Just let the story tell itself, Scott. You don't need to shout out and jump up and down for every shot, screaming "Look at me! Look at me! Look at me!"

There is a lot of silliness in the flick. The stock market aspect of the film makes no sense and is handled poorly. A well placed laptop with very convenient internet access brought out guffaws from the audience (and if you don't know what a guffaw is, then what a very sad, guffaw-less life you must lead). No real personalities emerge from either the hostages or the other villians - while it maintains tension to keep things almost completely focused on the Washington and Travolta characters, which is an example of a symbiotic hero/villian relationship I always love, I still wish some attention had been paid to the other characters too. The film isn't perfect, and a few day's after seeing it you might look back on it and wonder why you ever thought it was tense or unpredictable. But then, that's what Taking of Pelham does so well - it enraptures you so much while it plays, you don't notice that you've seen it all done before.

Once again, Dark Knight has unfairly spoiled me. Now that we've seen what a summer blockbuster movie can achieve, I kept thinking that it was the beginning of a trend, but now I'm slowly starting to realize it was just one helluva happy accident. Maybe I'm being unfair - maybe the awesome reprecussions and copycats of Dark Knight are still in development, since technically movies like this and Wolverine probably started shooting right around the time DK came into theatres and blew us all away. Maybe. But there's still a mounting sense of disappointment pervading this summer's big special effect spectacles, where all sorts of inventive ideas and planning have gone into the visual production, but not a single soul seems to give one rat's ass about the script.

The action and effects are the salvation for Terminator Salvation. If you try and pay attention to the story, or dialogue, or characters, you'll quickly sink into a mire of despond (yeah, I don't know what that means either, but it sounded good flying out of my keyboard, so it's gonna stay). I don't know if Christian Bale utters more than three lines in a row throught the entire film, other than the occasional radio talks to other resistance fighters. Indeed, most dialogue of every character consists of "Don't move!" "Run!" "Take cover!" "Fire!" and other such military nonsense. Strangely, the only character given any sort of development or general arc is the secondary one, played by Sam Worthington...others, like Bryce Dallas Howard as the wife of John Connor, are literally given less attention than, say, Joker's dogs in Dark Knight. And in terms of plot, the whole movie can be pretty much broken down into a very disappointing and anti-climactic series of walk, run, fight, walk, run, fight, end.

Thank God for the special effects. The movie is a feast of the eyes, as long as you like your feasts to be grungy and dirty. People have been ripping into and criticizing the hell out of McG for the movie, but you know what? He practically SAVES the movie - he takes a shitty script and mediocre performances and manages to make it quite entertaining. He's clearly been influenced by the brilliant film Children of Men, in that everything is bleached out, gritty, shaky, and containing surprisingly (and wonderful) long takes during action sequences as opposed to the usual slice-and-dice editing effect we've been getting so often lately (although nothing comes close to the virtuosity of the Children of Men action scenes). Whereas the computer generated imagery in Wolverine was absolutely embarassing, the work here is mostly very good, and thankfully the movie effects wizards don't completely rely on CGI for their film (not surprisingly, since every fucking person alive can tell when something's CG now, the best and most impressive machines are the ones that are clearly built by the hands of men and stuck in front of a camera).

So yeah, I have absolutely no complaints with McG's work. If anything, he should be praised for taking some very piss poor pages and making an entertaining movie out of it. That's not to say the movie escapes shittiness all the time - just not during the action scenes, which luckily this movie has an abundance of, all of which are very fun and sometimes even kinda sorta exciting. The strangest aspect of the film, however, has got to be the treatment of Christian Bale and Sam Worthington. Why did they even put Bale in the fucking movie? His character is almost completely M.I.A. for the first hour - all those awesome looking action scenes you see clips of in the trailer are involving Worthington's character, not Bale's. When was the last time a main character and major lead actor was so under-utilized in a summer blockbuster? I'm not complaining, in a way; let's face it, Worthington's character is by far more interesting than Bale's, and surprisingly better acted, too. But it did make a very strange disconnect, because I don't think anyone in the audience ever really cared about John Connor's plight. But all in all, as negative as I sound, this is a moderately enjoyable film. See it in the theatres if you can, because this is definitely a theatre movie - take away the big screen and awesome surround sound and minute it down to a small TV screen, and this will probably only be a 2 or 2.5 star movie. But if you immerse yourself in McG's vision and throw away your expectations for another Dark Knight, it's not bad. Not great, but not bad.

Final note: Danny Elfman composed a really cool, badass score for this film, but why the hell didn't he use the famous Terminator theme more often? Movie reboots or remakes keep on doing this lately, and I have no fucking clue why - no X-Men movie continued an old theme, the new Batman films ignored the earlier scores, and the James Bond movies, for some reason, now only use the main theme in the end credits. Brad Fiedel's scores for the first two Terminator flicks were godawful, but the main theme was not only kickass, but very synonmous with the Terminator world. Denying us this theme in the new movie was a mistake.

Monsters Vs. Aliens is silly, visually interesting fun. And that's it. I'm getting tired of saying that about every animated movie that comes out. Why are animations never used to tell good stories anymore? Films like Beauty and the Beast and Lion King were, on an animated level, technically flat, yes, and obviously two dimensional. But my God, they told amazing stories, filled with great drama and characters, eloquent dialogue, beautiful music and songs, and a great deal of over-the-top operatics. Not anymore. Basically every animated film that's released nowadays has to be an endless stream of wackiness, zaniness, slapstick humour, double entendres for the parents, and CGI animation. They always look good. But they're also completely forgettable for everyone over the age of 8. And yes, this applies to WALL-E, a film many heralded as one of the best animated movies ever, but I found highly overrated - a good flick, yes, and a step in the right direction, but even then the last half is completely dominated by standard wackiness and silly comedy.

Having made all these complaints, Monsters Vs. Aliens is one of the better wacky animated comedies of recent years (certainly more enjoyable than Dreamworks last picture, Kung Fu Panda). It seems to do a strange thing and mix the hilarious edge and wit of Over the Hedge with the lame and tired gags of the Madagascar movies. The scenes involving Stephen Colbert as the President (they even animated the character to resemble Colbert), are absolutely hilarious, and often quite pointed and mature in their humour. But these scenes are too often followed by ones where a character falls down and we're expected to laugh, or makes a pithy statement that isn't remotely funny, ever. In terms of humour, Monsters Vs. Aliens is a very mixed bag - half the time they try and fail, and the rest of the time they don't seem to try and wind up succeeding with big laughs.

The story is completely standard. You've seen this screenplay before, many, many, many times. There's no character identification, because we know exactly how this is all gonna turn out in the end. At least WALL-E had an original and inventive story (I feel weird praising a Pixar movie and lambasting a Dreamworks Animation movie, because I've long dismissed Pixar's movies as highly overrated shit and Dreamworks ones as underrated gems). But we've seen all this before - the only difference is, I guess, we haven't seen it before in 3D. I won't deny that seeing this film in 3D (I did it baked, no less), is a lot of fun. Stuff flies at you, the audience giggles, life moves on. But the problem with 3D is that it's not only a gimmick, making the movie more of a ride than an actual film, but it's also completely temporary amusement. See, 3D is only good when you see it in the theatre, with the RealD glasses. Once put on DVD, this movie will come with the shitty-ass cardboard red-blue glasses that make everything dark, murky, and completely not 3D. Why go to all the effort in making a completely immersive 3D experience, if it's only going to be able to be enjoyed in the short theatrical run it has? Put the RealD glasses on the DVD releases, then we'll talk.

I guess this sounds like a much more negative review than I intended. Make no mistake, the movie is silly, harmless fun. The action scenes have an enjoyable sense of energy to them, and are animated very well. The voice acting is fantastic, with Seth Rogen and the aforementioned Colbert getting the biggest laughs (and is it just me, or does Reese Witherspoon make a very sexy cartoon?). There's no question that kids will enjoy this flick, and certainly I would still rather see a mediocre Dreamworks flick than a mediocre Pixar movie, because at least with Dreamworks averageness, you won't have the entire world jizzing themselves and talking about how fucking great the same ol' average story is (I'm looking at you, Finding Nemo). Visually speaking, there's absolutely nothing wrong with this movie. But I'm growing tired of the lack of effort on a storytelling level that's being produced in the animated world. If they think kids will be bored when told a good, mature, epic, operatic, dramatic story, they should go to any kid's home they can think of, and believe me, they'll see more copies of Lion King's and Beauty and the Beast's and Aladdin's and Mulan's then they will Monsters Vs. Aliens. This is a fun enough film, but it could, and should, have been so much more.