Films of 2009

(Review Coming)

Zack Snyder's "Watchmen" is a terrific adaptation of a literary masterpiece. It's a thoughtful, artistically stimulating film in its own right, that captures the atmosphere, look, and heart of the novel as well as any celluloid production could ever hope to. It is clearly not the novel, lacking much of the impact and meticulous detail that was so beautifully displayed in Alan Moore and Dave Gibbons' masterstroke. However, it is a wonderful film, taking the cinematic aspects of the novel and molding it into a beautiful film that gloriously evokes Moore's spirit. It is such a pity then, that Moore denounced the film, considering, in all likelihood, this will be the most faithful adaptation of his work ever produced. Regardless of Moore's thoughts, it's a triumph of a film, with some wonderful acting, top-notch production values and some haunting moral implications. Patrick Wilson and Jeffery Dean Morgan were pitch-perfect as Nite Owl and The Comedian respectively. Jackie Earle Haley's Rorschach is a haunted, gloriously flawed hero as great as any the cinema has seen in past years and Billy Crudup's Dr. Manhattan is mythic and distantly human. Both these actors took great literary characters and sculpted them into living flesh and blood; when the audience leaves the theatre, these will be the actors they talk about. Complain all you like about how you didn't care for some of the musical choices, or how Carla Gugino's Silk Spectre was irksome; these are but minor imperfections upon a glorious canvas. Perhaps it would be difficult to understand if one is not already familiar with the novel, but for those already initiated, "Watchmen" is a powerful film, one sure for years to come.

"The Hurt Locker" is undoubtedly the best war film of the past few years. Kathryn Bigelow's film about a team of bomb diffusers in Iraq is a glorious conglomeration of tense set pieces, terrific acting, and original direction. Its plot is loosely connected, more centered on the characters and their job than any overarching story. Instead of some contrived Hollywood story, Bigelow wisely shows only the reality of the characters jobs, their hardships with insurgents and themselves, and their inability to relate to ordinary life. This dehumanization has become a common theme when exploring the Iraq war -- one it shares with Vietnam -- and "The Hurt Locker" subtly fixates on this aspect of Jeremy Renner's Sergeant James. Renner's performance is fantastic, entrancing the audience around his eccentric, adrenaline-obsessed bomb diffuser. He's both charismatic and extremely perplexing, and Bigelow sums up the character in a brilliant final scene; the final shot of Renner eagerly walking out to diffuse yet another IED, his pompous strut, the title on the screen "364 days left in rotation", exhilarates and leaves the audience in thoughtful reflection. Renner's performance is the centre of the film, around which inhabit interesting supporting performances (notably Ralph Fiennes and Guy Pearce in excellent cameos), exhilarating and tense action pieces, and innovative camerawork. "The Hurt Locker" stimulates both the body and the mind, and is one of the best films of the year.

Certain films truly take you away to a fully realized, fantastic world. They leave you in awe like a child, giddy at the wonders that unfold before you on screen and instill you with a certain sense of nostalgia, a longing for a time when you could imagine yourself in the most fantastic of circumstances. "Coraline" wonderfully captures this side of childhood, and is as effective an animated film as I've seen in a long time. Neil Gaiman's story is a perfect contemporary fairy tale. It's unsettling, full of eye-catching oddities and contains a moral lesson at the end of it all. It's undoubtedly one of the best fairy tales of the past decade and the film version is a treat. Henry Selick's wonderful stop-motion animation outdoes his previous efforts in "The Nightmare Before Christmas" and without Tim Burton behind him, the end result is free of perversion and grotesquerie, and is allowed to have human emotion. The highly visual world that Selick has created is amplified through the ingenious use of Tru3D, a subtle, highly engaging new form of 3D. The voice-acting is strong, with Dakota Fanning serving well to slightly annoy the audience and make us wish her a lesson well-learned. A real highlight of the film is the original score, a fantastical chilly and unsettling soundtrack by Bruno Coulais. It's ambient and magical, and truly emphasizes the creepiness of the plotline. "Coraline" in all its components is a wonderful animated film with an extremely engaging story and wonderful aesthetics making you want to experience its fully realized magical world.

Hayao Miyazaki's films are second-to-none in terms of animation. Not even Pixar can boast as impressible a track record or as visionary an imagination. "Ponyo" is Miyazaki's latest testament to the imaginative power of children, working in the same vein as his previous great films, "My Neighbor Totoro" and "Kiki's Delivery Service". The plot is similar to that of "The Little Mermaid", chronicling the love between a goldfish princess and a five year-old boy. The story is pure archetypal magic, but its Miyazaki's unique artistic flourishes that lend it its true appeal. The animation is comprised of beautiful watercolour paintings lending a lovely radiance to the entire film, vividly bringing alive the magic that explodes onscreen. The characters are wonderfully eccentric with impressive voice acting, and Ponyo especially is destined to become a beloved animated character. The score is sweeping and the scenes are at times almost unbearably adorable. "Ponyo" is an hour and forty minutes of animated bliss and through it, Miyazaki once again shows why he is the modern master of animation.

The Coen Brothers are impeccable filmmakers. Their best films are genuinely great: "No Country for Old Men", "Fargo", "Miller's Crossing". Their middling films are excellent: "Barton Fink", "Burn After Reading", "O Brother, Where Art Thou?." Even a failure like "The Ladykillers" is technically impressive and well-acted. "A Serious Man" ranks near the top of their entire oeuvre as an indelible examination of the role of the story within Judaism. The Coens are not practicing Jews, but "A Serious Man" deeply understands the rabbinic use of 'story' to convey God's meaning, even if that meaning is never explicit or satisfactory. The parallels to the Book of Job are apt, but merely because Job is the archetypal example of the rabbinic story explaining why bad things happen to good people, the archetype that "A Serious Man" draws upon.

"A Serious Man" is an excellent film with brilliant acting by the majority of the cast -- Michael Stuhlbarg is a great leading man whom I hope to see in many future films; Fred Melamed's Sy Ableman is also excellent, stealing the few scenes that he's in. From the first instance we hear his voice, Sy strikes us as a fully formed character, one that is enthralling in his contradictions and his mannerisms. He's the kind of character one both admires and loathes, which is appropriate to his duality as both Larry's rival and friend. The Coens are able to get strong acting out of their entire cast, and even though there were a few gratuitous moments of Coen Brothers-oddity -- the excessive swearing and pot-smoking editing seemed unnecessary -- the story is excellent, far better than what 99% of Hollywood can put out. As well, Roger Deakin's return to the place of cinematographer is a welcome one, showcasing why he's one of the best in the business.

At the end of the film, the audience is given no closure just as Larry Gopnik is still left in question as to what his whole misfortune means. Like the story of the Dybbuk or Schrodenger's cat, the observer can never actually know the truth of the situation; Larry is never aware of God's meaning in his life, and the audience never learns what the Coens are trying to convey. This is why the off-beat ending that has so many critics puzzled is so appropriate to the film; "A Serious Man" is not like the Book of Job where God comes down and explains everything to Job, but reflects real life where the most important questions are left unexplained, and the deepest meanings may be pure coincidence or a strange divine work. What the Coens are trying to get across is that we'll never know, and that doesn't make it any less frustrating.

I've been a fan of Neill Blomkamp's short films for years, far before he was known by Hollywood as the wunderkind behind this year's sleeper hit, "District 9". He's a fascinating director, with a keen eye for action and an active moral conscience. "District 9" is a testament to Blomkamp's ability to weave together exhilarating action and insightful social commentary. By now, every filmgoer knows that "District 9" is a thinly veiled allegory on apartheid. The genius of Blomkamp, however, is that the allegory is the not focal point of his film. The message of social tolerance and introspection runs throughout the entirety of "District 9" but isn't so opaque that it obscures the other components of the film; it's underlying and not overbearing. The real centre of the film is Sharlto Copley's Wikus van der Merwe, and his transformation, literally and figuratively, from foolish bigot to prawn savior. Copley's performance is masterful and a tremendous feat for a first-time actor. As well as Copley's brilliant performance, "District 9" boasts some of the best action in years. It's kinetic and imaginative; the alien weapons are a wonder to see on screen, as well as stomach churning. "District 9" is exactly what a great action film should be: exhilarating, emotional, and engrossing, but above all, daring to pose tough questions regarding humanity and its capacity for cruelty.

J. J. Abrams's "Star Trek" is not only one of the best blockbusters of recent years, it is a triumphant reboot/origin story, standing strong alongside "Casino Royale" and "Batman Begins". J. J. Abrams and screenwriters Roberto Orci and Alex Kurtzman demonstrate a keen understanding of the character dynamics of the original show, along with great storytelling abilities. They respect the original series but are wise enough to avoid revering it, thus allowing themselves to bring fresh perspectives to the franchise. By doing so, they've broadened the audience and created a film that can be enjoyed by newcomers (however much I love the "Watchmen" film, it can only appeal to diehards, something that "Star Trek" smartly avoids.) Along with a smart storyline that handily manages to tie itself into the original series, the cast is just fantastic at bringing to life the well-known and loved Enterprise crew. Chris Pine and Zachary Quinto are particularly fine at handling the characters of Kirk and Spock (respectively), being undeniably reminiscent of Shatner and Nimoy, but at the same time bringing their own unique characteristics and complexities. This is just one wonderfully acted film, something that cant be said about all previous Star Treks. With a furious pace, kinetic cinematography, and beautifully rendered visual effects and action sequences, "Star Trek" has more than enough to recommend itself. Star Trek has always held an affectionate place in my heart and this film more than lives up to its proud science fiction predecessors.

Wes Anderson is a man well-suited to animation. The old-fashioned stop-motion animation and Anderson's unique quirkiness come together perfectly to bring alive this Roald Dahl animal caper. "Fantastic Mr. Fox" is a delightful film; the voice actors all do wonderful jobs brining to life the clay and wire figures, instilling them with emotion. The little characters scenes in this film are phenomenal. The family dynamic of the Foxes is just as realistic and interesting as that of the Tenenbaums or the Whitmans. In particular, George Clooney and Jason Schwartzman are outstanding. Their voice acting work is so complimentary to the visual material that they do more than just make the characters believable, they give performances that are every bit as worthy as their best live-action ones. Anderson's impeccable visual aesthetic lends itself beautifully to the fantastic world of Mr. Fox. Possibly the best part of the film is its humor. The laughs come rapid-fire, never falling short. The choice to substitute 'cuss' for any time a character swears was brilliant, something that only gets better as the film progresses. This is just a charming film all around. It's simple, but it's deep. "Fantastic Mr. Fox" is a wonderful animated film that never ceases to dazzle from start to finish.

The Harry Potter series is that rare film series where every entry is a competent and impressive production. Its sixth entry, "Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince", is itself an impressive film, with beautiful production values and strong performances. It ranks among the best in the series, falling slightly behind Mike Newell's brilliant 2005 adaptation, "Goblet of Fire", and just ahead of its 2007 precursor, "Order of the Phoenix". This newest entry may lack some of the action of that past two films, but it more than makes up for it with an abundance of acutely crafted character moments. The three principals (Daniel Radcliffe, Emma Watson, and Rupert Grint) have all matured into fine actors and Half-Blood Prince takes advantage of this. It allows these characters greater room to breath, and allows the actors to showcase their blooming talents. As well, the supporting cast of "Half-Blood Prince" is excellent, with Michael Gambon giving the definitive Dumbledore performance, Alan Rickman once again showing the many conflicting facets of Snape, and Jim Broadbent as the hilarious, scene-stealing Horace Slughorn. As well, "Half-Blood Prince" spares no expense on lavish set pieces and impressive camerawork. It's a visually rich film and from the real-world opening to the climax in the cave, each scene is a feast for the eyes. "Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince" is not only a wonderful Harry Potter film, but also one of the best films of the year, a carefully crafted summer blockbuster. This is what a fantasy blockbuster should look like.

"Up" is another achievement for Pixar, a studio that has yet to make a misstep and continues to push the limits in animation. Beyond the obvious glorious visuals and enchanting storyline, "Up" contains some very human characters, more-so than most of Pixar's past creations. Carl Frederickson is as fully realized as some of the great film old-timers, and he works surprisingly well as the hero in a children's adventure film. Interestingly enough, his character shares many parallels with Clint Eastwood's Walt Kowalski in last year's "Gran Torino" - look for them. As well, Russell and Dug the dog, characters who could've been horribly overused or cliched, come across as genuine and very funny. Dug especially seems to capture the essence of being a dog and scenes in which he appears are a real joy to watch. Perhaps "Up"'s greatest weakness is that by affirming that ordinary life is more important than adventure, its adventure scenes seem to be lacking the interest of the other. The ordinary moments, especially the five-minute silence montage of Carl's life with Ellie, are moving and far more engrossing than most live-action dramas, not to mention the fantastic adventure sequences of Paradise Falls. As well, the Lost World jungle setting could've done with a few more animal oddities, although, Kevin is priceless. "Up" is not Pixar's best film but I do believe it's a more engrossing and emotional film than last year's "Wall-E", and so won't be surprised when it picks up another award at next year's Oscars.

My article from The Sheaf:

If you have read an entertainment magazine, newspaper or news website in the past few weeks, you have likely heard about the latest phenomenon to ignite the film viewing public: "Paranormal Activity."

Hailed as this decade's "Blair Witch Project" and inspiring independent filmmakers everywhere, "Paranormal Activity" is an ultra low budget, shaky-cam horror film chronicling the haunting of an ordinary American couple.

"Paranormal Activity" follows Micah and Katie (Micah Sloat and Katie Featherston), a couple in their 20s living together in a two-storey house.

Katie is worried that she is being haunted by otherworldly beings and Micah has purchased an HD video camera in order to capture on film what exactly is behind it. That's it -- a very simple framework upon which director Oren Peli weaves an exquisite showcase of unbearable tension and horror.

"Paranormal Activity"'s footage is supposedly that of Micah's video-documentation of what is happening to them while they sleep. Every day, the camera records Katie and him bickering about how to approach the latest problem in their relationship and every night it is positioned in the corner of their master bedroom, recording the anomalous activity that is unsettling their lives.

The nighttime scenes are what make the movie. The horror begins slowly, with odd yet amusing things occurring such as the swinging of a door or a thumping downstairs. Peli eases the audience into watching exactly what is occurring on screen; his choice to make the camera static was brilliant, adding an unexpected amount of realism to the scenes, as well as forcing the audience into witnessing everything that unfolds.

Like slowly boiling a frog in a pot of water, Peli tricks the audience into accepting every layer of tension he builds until, near the end, the emotional strain becomes almost unbearable. There are no cuts to relieve tension, so when Katie's leg is mysteriously lifted from the bed and she is dragged kicking and screaming down the hallway, the audience is forced to witness the entire scene.

There are no musical swells to alert the audience of danger, no Bernard Herrmann strings to emphasize the thrills or cheap jump-scares to unnerve the audience; every scare in Paranormal Activity is earned through ever present tension and an expert manipulation of innate human fears.

"Paranormal Activity" draws its horror from the most instinctive human fears -- nighttime, demons and the unknown. Peli wisely draws upon the films of Val Lewton and chooses never to show the actual source of the disturbance, instead allowing the horror to swell inside the audience's mind, letting their imaginations run wild and distort the fear into something more than it is.

Of course there are some shortcomings to "Paranormal Activity". Its filmmaking is uneven and it often shows that it was made for a scant $15,000; occasionally it has poor dialogue and weak acting. However, the nighttime scenes are so expertly crafted, so brilliantly framed, so inherently scary -- especially for a low-budget horror film -- that they make the film's other flaws negligible.

Much like comedy, horror is an extremely subjective genre. "Paranormal Activity" might not scare you, but, on the other hand, it could easily be one of the most terrifying and exhilarating experiences at the theatre in years, and one that comes recommended to everyone -- unless you have a weak heart. See it with a crowd. Don't go alone.

I love a good mystery/thriller, especially when it has a cast as impressive as "State of Play"'s. Russell Crowe, Rachel McAdams, Helen Mirren, Robin Wright Penn, Jeff Daniels, Jason Bateman, hell, I even love Ben Affleck. From the multitude of good reviews it's gotten, the impressive cast, and the promising director, I walked into "State of Play" expecting a good film. And that's precisely what I got. Now, I haven't seen the BBC miniseries which it's based off of, so I can't be a good judge of how good an adaptation it was; I can merely judge the film on its own. It was an impressive, marvelously layer mystery as well as a love-letter to the golden days of journalism. The entire cast is exceptional; Russell Crowe is excellent as per usual and Jason Bateman is especially riveting in a scene-stealing bit-part. The mystery aspect of the film was surprisingly tense and suspenseful, especially for a film having to do with newspaper journalists. In fact, a good way to describe this film would be as a journalism-procedural, working very much as a journalist version of the police-procedural popularized in films like "Zodiac" and "L. A. Confidential". Credit must be given to Tony Gilroy's contributions to the script and Kevin Macdonald's direction. "State of Play" is just an exceptional film and a real highlight in this spring movie season.

"Adventureland" is not "Superbad", so don't be fooled by the fact that they're both directed by Greg Mottola. Where the latter shares many more similarities with its comedy contemporaries like "Knocked Up" and "I Love You, Man", "Adventureland" is a nostalgia comedy/romance, harkening back to films like "American Graffiti" and "Dazed and Confused". It's a funny film, but the comedy is not the focus of the film. It focuses on its characters and the time-period which they inhabit. Through these characters' interactions and attitudes, the late 80s are revealed to us in a very intimate and genuine way. "Adventureland" boasts plenty of heart behind its comical exterior, and some genuinely great performances. Chief among them is Kristen Stewart's repressed and extremely layered performance, showing that her floundering showing in "Twilight" was likely due to the film's poor dialogue, and not her acting abilities. "Adventureland" may disappoint some people who assume it to be another raunchy, occasionally sweet, but usually shallow comedy inspired by Judd Apatow. However, for people who enjoy a good coming-of-age story, and are slightly romantically inclined, "Adventureland" is sure to impress.

(Review Coming)

Michael Mann's films are not your typical action films. They're drawn out, often quiet, contemplative, and spend far more time developing characters than most dramas do. They're original and hyper-realistic; the violence is brutal and the characters not always attractive Hollywood character-types. "Public Enemies", his newest film focusing on the exploits of John Dillinger, fits into this typical film mold of Mann's. It's very much a 1930s version of "Heat", and this retracing of familiar ground is not necessarily a negative. Mann draws on his strong points and especially his undeniably slick action style making the bank robbery scenes, in particular, a joy to watch. Some viewers would hold the opinion that the action scenes are too few and far between, but Mann isn't interested in Hollywood explosions; none of the action is gratuitous. As well, the characters shift away from what Hollywood would make you expect of them. Johnny Depp's John Dillinger is suave, slick and attractive, but also compulsive, violent, and often foolish. Christian Bale's Agent Purvis is conflicted, depressed, and devoid of charisma or charm. You like the bad guy more than you like the good guy, but neither are truly sympathetic. The story may occasionally lull but it is intriguing, and along with its strong performances and dynamic cinematography, "Public Enemies" is a strong film. It's not quite an action film and not quite a drama, but a delicate combination of the two that Michael Mann is so skilled at composing.

"The Hangover" is a hilarious, original, and terrifically-executed comedy. First of all, it avoids being just another "Crazy in Vegas" film and comes across as completely original in its execution. As well as the situation, the characters could've easily been cliche, but instead outgrow the confines of their character-types and really shine. The three principles (Bradley Cooper, Ed Helms, Zach Galifianakis) are all spectacular in their roles and their onscreen chemistry is as dynamic as the best comedy trios. The script handily avoids many hallmarks in comedy nowadays -- bromance, incompetent man-children, inability to relate to the opposite sex -- and comes across as truly original. Its plot moves along nicely and creates countless comedic opportunities; it isn't merely an excuse for improvised jokes by famous comedians in the vein of Apatow films. Not saying that Apatow's films aren't good -- they are -- but "The Hangover" is able to be fresh, hilarious, and have an engrossing mystery plotline. As well, it's terrifically shot for a comedy. "The Hangover" is a film with broad comedic appeal and will very likely remain the best comedy of the year.

It's interesting how simple a horror film looks when it's made by someone with competent filmmaking skills. Horror films nowadays aren't concerned with scares, they're concerned with screaming, and gore, and naked girls. However much I enjoy a bad 70s horror film, it's sad that films considered B-movies back in the day have become the mainstay of the genre. "Drag Me To Hell" is a true horror film. It's not interested in dousing the audience in blood after arousing them with the sight of stripping teenagers. It's interested in scares and playing the audience in order to get bigger ones. Sam Raimi understands horror and humor; any person who's seen the "Evil Dead" films can second that. He knows how to play the audience like an instrument, to lure them in with surmounting tension, to make them relax with a well-placed gag, then to assault their senses with genuine scares. "Drag Me To Hell" is a very straightforward horror film. Its story is familiar and its characters as well. It's formulaic but it works beautifully. Ultimately, it's a trim 99 minutes that scared me and made me laugh more than most films in the past two years. "Drag Me To Hell" is a return to classic horror and a most welcome return at that.

Anyone who enjoys a beautiful sunset or a gorgeous panoramic view of a mountain range owes it to him(her)self to see this film. In fact, everyone should see "Earth". It's a glorious, beautifully photographed, and surprisingly moving documentary that leaves one in awe of this planet we inhabit. Disney made a very smart move when they decided to edit down the brilliant BBC television series "Planet Earth" into a feature film, concoct a narrative, and elicit the contribution of James Earl Jones as narrator. Animals are fascinating subjects that have enthralled people forever. Not only does "Earth" explore the lives of various animals and all their eccentricities (albeit, in a sometimes overly anthropomorphic manner), but it paints a beautiful picture of our planet as a living organism itself. Many moments of the film are genuinely moving merely through their natural events. That's the beauty of the documentary; often reality evokes far more emotion than a fictional story. "Earth" is a beautiful film as well as a subtle call-to-arms to save this fantastic world we live in.

Quiet and elegiac. Not a film for people who like nonstop exposition or showy performances. It's subtly is its strength and often the most important lines of dialogue are left unsaid. Both Patricia Clarkson and Alexander Siddig are very effective and the cinematography brilliantly captures Cairo. A touching travelogue.

(Review Coming)

(Review Coming)

(Review Coming)

It's rare for romances nowadays to be as honest as "Two Lovers". This film, the professed swan song of Joaquin Phoenix, is a powerfully-acted film that explores love and its complexities. It's a quiet, emotionally-charged film with a strange, attractive, yet tentative protagonist who's haunted by his emotional disorder and the consequences it's had on his relationship with his parents and his lovers. Director James Gray wisely matches the tonal composition of New York to Leonard's (Phoenix) own tone. He dulls the city, making it seem blunt and grey and unnervingly realistic, not exactly gritty, but devoid of the sparkle and allure that creations such as "Sex and the City" have attached to it. Phoenix's performance is exceptional. He molds a terrific character that likely would land him an Oscar nomination if the film was released in awards season. Vinessa Shaw, Gwyneth Paltrow, and Isabella Rossellini are all solid in their performances but this is Phoenix's show. The film's only weakness is that it occasionally lulls into too melancholy a state and momentarily loses the interest of the viewer. As well, the characters are not particularly likeable and it's not a very enjoyable film to watch, but then again, I don't believe it's meant to be. "Two Lovers" is an odd romantic film, but a refreshing one that handily outdoes its genre contemporaries.

"Funny People" is a much more mature film than Judd Apatow's two previous efforts. For this reason, it polarizes the people that see it. Some people see it as an overly long, too dark, humdrum dramedy that is not very funny. Others see it as a successful, albeit flawed, examination of mortality and humor, and their interconnectedness. I'm one of the latter. I found "Funny People" very funny, not overly long, and often insightful. Yes, I found it to lull occasionally, and yes, I agree that it's marketing was misleading, but I was surprised at how Apatow was able to intersperse some very realistic character moments with some absolutely hilarious standup. It gives rare insight into the lives of standup comedians and how often those whose job it is to be funny have the most depressing lives of anyone. Most complaints of the film are aimed at the third act switch, where the tone shifts and the characters cease to grow. This switch is not entirely successful, but I can appreciate the point that Apatow is trying to make by including it in the film. I appreciate the film's acting: how Adam Sandler gives his best performance ever; how Seth Rogen is trying to outgrow his man-child typecasting; how Jason Schwartzman and Jonah Hill are great supporting actors (in a side note, I found their sitcom, "Yo Teach", to be the funniest part of the film). I appreciate how Judd Apatow is trying to make more than just standard bromances, and is being audacious and bold as a director. For these reasons, I find "Funny People" a funny, flawed, and realistic film that demonstrates why Judd Apatow is the most interesting director of comedy working today.

Robert Zemeckis often seems more interested in utilizing new filming technology than telling stories. Luckily, with "A Christmas Carol," Zemeckis draws upon a classic tale that everyone's familiar with to show off his fancy new motion capture technology. It's quite a task making a version of "A Christmas Carol" seem new and vibrant, so Zemeckis must be given credit for succeeding in doing so. Zemeckis allows us to see "A Christmas Carol" in a new light, emphasizing the fantastic elements of the story and showing us that at its heart, "A Christmas Carol" is a ghost story. In particular, Marley's visit to Scrooge is an expertly crafted scene with great tension and genuine scares. Jim Carrey is quite admirable as Scrooge; his hyperactive acting and wide range of vocal talents lend well to the wide-variety of characters he plays. As well, his transformation at the end of the film is particularly memorable, and more than a little psychotic. "A Christmas Carol" does have a couple over-the-top action sequences that detract from the film and the obligatory 3D show-off shots -- the chase sequence with the Ghost of Christmas Yet To Come is completely unnecessary -- but for the most part, the motion capture really adds to the film. Zemeckis' "A Christmas Carol" doesn't have the iconic status of the 1951 film with Alastir Sim, or even the charm of the Muppets' version, but it is a more-than-satisfactory version of the Charles Dickens story proving that motion capture technology is more than a visual gimmick and can actually add to an already great story.

After 2006's "Borat", everyone wondered what Sacha Baron Cohen's next step would be. "Bruno" is that next step, and it is a shocking, offensive, and uproariously funny film. Baron Cohen pulls no punches in this satire of American intolerance and glam-culture. It's an absolutely in-your-face film with no regard for what we call good-taste. It's vulgar through and through, from a discussion about why autism's 'in', to a talk show about whether Jaime Lynn Spears should abort her child, to an all-out swingers party of sexual hypocrites, to stripping in front of Ron Paul, to a full-frontal shot of a penis screaming "Bruno!" this film doesn't even acknowledge the existence of a line of decency. And the results are hilarious, if perhaps uneven. There's little in way of a plot and some of the gags fall short of their potential, but probably the biggest flaw is that Bruno himself is a dislikeable individual. Unlike Borat, Bruno doesn't win your sympathy by the end of the film. He's as much an object of attack as the people he interviews. Thus, in the end, "Bruno" is a flawed film, successful and hilarious, but falling short of the glory of "Borat". But, after all, that was to be expected, and we can't hold it against Sacha Baron Cohen that he doesn't make the best comedy of the year every year. "Bruno"'s hilarious, and that's what counts.

(Review Coming)

(Review Coming)

(Review Coming)

Tony Scott is a director of style over substance. Fortunately enough, in "The Taking of Pelham 1 2 3", he's able to make the style as attractive that you forget about the lack of substance. "The Taking of Pelham 1 2 3" is a terrifically entertaining movie, with great cinematography, enjoyable performances, and a tense story. Tony Scott wisely avoids retracing the 1974 original track for track, taking the story in a different direction but keeping the same claustrophobic tension that made the original a winner. As well, Scott successfully avoids the pitfalls of post-9/11 action films, especially ones that take place in New York. There are references to terrorism, but "The Taking of Pelham 1 2 3" doesn't attempt to preach some kind of message about the state of America after 9/11. It's a straight up thrill ride that is often exhilarating. Denzel Washington is surprisingly able to drop his righteous black man act, and plays a somewhat pathetic subway controller. John Travolta is riveting, although absolutely over-the-top, as the Catholic high-jacker, Ryder. The supporting cast is equally enjoyable, with John Turturro and James Gandolfini deserving special note. "The Taking of Pelham 1 2 3" is not a deep film in any manner, but it's an extremely entertaining and tense action romp. Tony Scott's films may not be consistent, but when they succeed, they are truly exhilarating.

(Review Coming)

(Review Coming)

"Observe and Report" is a twisted, dark comedy, very unlike its comedy contemporaries. The characters are despicable, especially Rogen's Ronnie, the bi-polar protagonist whose delusions of grandeur mold him into a borderline sadist. Rogen plays seriously against type and for the most part, he's quite successful. The sad and ultimately brilliant thing about "Observe and Report" is that we see ourselves in the characters, and are called to question ourselves after the many moments of laughter. Many moments are genuinely shocking and pushing the boundaries in many respects. Some will laugh where others will cringe; the majority will do an awkward combination of both. If you enjoy laughing at the follies of humanity, you should enjoy this film, but don't be disturbed when you begin to see some of the characters' grotesque characteristics within yourself. I believe this is partially its purpose: to be a strange comedy that forces the audience to reflect inward. Overall, I found "Observe and Report" very successful, but ultimately, like most comedies, it's a matter of taste that you'll have to judge for yourself.

Although perhaps not the film many were expecting, McG's "Terminator Salvation" is still an impressive action film and a solid entry in the Terminator canon. It is first and foremost an action film, and McG handles the action particularly well. There are many highlights that recommend themselves (the Harvester scene comes to mind), and ultimately, a film like this really brings to light what sad attempts at blockbuster entertainment films like "Transformers" are. McG's camera movements are fluid and kinetic, without being nauseating; he wisely avoids the shaky-cam so predominant in action films nowadays. Although he is still lacking a signature style, McG's action is definitely the reason to see the film, but not the only one. The cast is confident, not Oscar-caliber but strong and assured in their performances. Christian Bale is typically strong and Sam Worthington is surprisingly effective as the co-lead Marcus Wright. As well, Anton Yelchin is a scene-stealer as a young Kyle Reese, being undeniably reminiscent of Michael Biehn without seeming an impersonation. The story may be the weakest part of the film with some impossible plot-points and confusing motivations. Still, the critics give it far too little credit. It's not perfect but you could do far worse than go see "Terminator Salvation" instead of another "Transformers" film. In the end, "Terminator Salvation" may fall short of the first two Terminator films, but it's no lifeless robot.

It seems that we live in the age of the bromance. Judd Apatow and all his followers have turned comedy into a genre full of somewhat geeky, sexually awkward 'man-childs' who hold their relationships with their fellow men as more important than those of the opposite sex. If this sounds like a complaint, please don't misconstrue my words; this new kind of comedy has produced very many laughs and some genuinely good films. "I Love You, Man" is the ultimate bromance, a film that focuses on a man-to-man relationship, with endearing characters and some hearty laughs. As well, it handles women respectfully and realistically, a rarity in comedy. Paul Rudd and Jason Segel are two of the most likeable men working in comedy today, and the decision to pair them up and cast them as characters differing from their norm was ingenious. They're amiable, genuine, silly, and very funny. Their characters are the kind of guys you'd want to hang out with on the weekends, which seems to be what John Hamburg was going for. "I Love You, Man" is a love-letter to friendships, a celebration of men's idiocies, and a really funny film.

"Taken" is a ludicrous film. Its plot is preposterous and its conclusion is especially farfetched. That being said, "Taken" is a well-made, thrilling film and is ultimately successful. Liam Neeson brings a bizarre level of credibility to the role of a former spy who must use his skills to rescue his kidnapped daughter from sex traders. I appreciated his honesty in the role, and at the ripe age of 56, he is surprisingly effective as an action star. I enjoyed the film's set-up: it was short and sweet, delivering the motivations for Bryan Mills (Neeson) but never seeming gratuitous or overly melodramatic. Pierre Morel knows that people came to see the action which he doesn't disappoint with. It's kinetic, wild and very Paul Greengrass-inspired. Morel understands that the mere fact that Neeson is the lead will make the audience sympathize with him, and he is not scared to test the boundaries of this sympathy. The action is brutal and quite frankly, Mills is far from a hero. Morel plays the game of action-film stereotypes, but he never pushes it too far, allowing the film to exist within a pseudo-reality. "Taken" delivers on its main purpose, and if you allow yourself to be caught up in the action, you'll be pleasantly entertained.

(Review Coming)

(Review Coming)

(Review Coming)

"Angels & Demons" is the kind of film that I'm a sucker for: it's big, has an A-list cast, is a thriller, and has beautiful production values. Ron Howard's second film following the exploits of Robert Langdon (Tom Hanks) may not be as controversial or 'important' as the first film, but what it lacks in intrigue, it makes up for in suspense and a dire sense of urgency. In "Angels & Demons", unlike in "The Da Vinci Code", it actually matters whether Langdon solves the puzzle of the plot; people's lives hang in the balance. The film takes place almost exclusively in Rome (and the Vatican City if you choose to be picky), so there is no lack of beautiful set-pieces and gorgeous panoramic shots. In fact, from a technical viewpoint, "Angels & Demons" is just a superbly made film. All of its flaws lie in its script which (I can only assume as I have not read the novel) must be from the original novel. The plot is thin, with a few too many coincidences and contrivances. The character development is almost nonexistent, but what can one expect from a film taking place within one day? Luckily, during the course of the film, few of these problems come to mind; the pace is too fast and the plot quite intriguing. As well, the addition of Ewan McGregor and Stellan Skarsgard can never hurt a film. Those who enjoyed the film version of "The Da Vinci Code" will enjoy "Angels & Demons", the tighter, more competent prequel turned sequel. Just don't expect to learn anything real along the way.

(Review Coming)

DreamWorks will never make better films than Pixar. This in mind, there was no way that Monsters vs. Aliens could live up to the likes of Wall-E or The Incredibles. However, it does stand among the best of what DreamWorks has done, holding its own with Kung-Fu Panda and the first Shrek. Monsters vs. Aliens shows an obvious love of 1950s B-movie science fiction film, with throw backs to The Blob, Attack of the 50ft. Woman, and Creature from the Black Lagoon. The entire movie itself is a big-budget homage to these schlock films of yesteryear. It has the camp, the old-movie conventions, and the ridiculous monsters that made these films so enjoyable. Then, on top of all this, it utilizes some wonderful 3D technology. There has been a lot of debate lately as to whether 3D has its place in film, and although often in the past it has been quite distracting, this new Tru3D seems to really incorporate itself into the film, becoming an integral part of the experience. In a discussion with some online commentators, I likened the removal of the 3D from a film like Monsters vs. Aliens to the removal of the score from The Lion King. In short, without the 3D, it's not the same film. Go see Monsters vs. Aliens for the exceptional 3D animation, the enjoyable gags, and the conventional sci-fi plot. It's not mind-blowing, but it is better than most of what DreamWorks has offered in the past.

Silly and amusing, but ultimately unsatisfying as a whole.

(Review Coming)

"Extract" has a lot of elements going for it, but it ultimately fails to deliver on its comedic premise. Mike Judge understands the frustrations of blue collar America and can often mine this understanding for great laughs. Unfortunately, too often in "Extract" the plot seems to wander into derivative sequences and recycled laughs. There's no narrative coherence and the comedy is often too slight. In all fairness, the cast does an admirable job. Jason Bateman is a strong lead, playing the kind of character we've come to expect of him, but playing it dead-on. Kristen Wiig, J. K. Simmons, and even Ben Affleck are also quite funny, playing their parts for all they're worth. It's just that the jokes aren't hilarious. They make you chuckle and smile, and occasionally genuinely laugh, but as often as these laughs come, there are just as many jokes that miss the target. There's nothing uncomfortable about the humor in "Extract", it's just mediocre. "Extract" can be funny, but "Office Space" makes the same comments about work, but in a much funnier way. I don't doubt Mike Judge has a keen sense of comedy, but "Extract" is a poor example of what he's capable of.

I'm extremely torn when it comes to this film. Does a film's entertainment value counterbalance its flaws, however numerous there are? This is the question that I've been struck with. Upon exiting the theatre after viewing "X-Men Origins: Wolverine" (a title that in itself is absurd), I felt good; I'd enjoyed the action scenes and thoroughly appreciated Hugh Jackman's reprisal of his star-making role. As well, I was very impressed with Liev Schreiber's Sabretooth, making me regret the fact that he was not in the previous films. However, there were a multitude of flaws that were impossible to ignore. Ryan Reynolds was excellent as Wade Wilson/Deadpool but he was completely wasted. Gambit was uselessly added to appease the multitude of fanboys and Logan's relationship with Silverfox was a very shallow episode. In fact, the film barely handles the origin of Wolverine, skipping over 100 years of history that could've been a celluloid goldmine. The contrived plotline and shoddy special effects didn't help either. "X-Men Origins: Wolverine" is not a bad film and is greatly superior to "X-Men: The Last Stand", but it most definitely could've been better. Wolverine has always been the best part about the X-Men films, but in this story, he almost seems the only good part.

"Crank" is pure trash. It's important to establish this off the bat so that whoever ventures out to see this film knows what kind of experience they're getting themselves into. That being said, "Crank: High Voltage" is basically just what the title promises: it's the first film with its energy cranked up to eleven. It's hyperactive in the strictest sense of the word, a film tailor-made for the ADD generation. The camerawork is nauseatingly kinetic and the characters are grotesque. Jason Statham easily holds onto his crown as B-movie king, but the story seems to lack the urgency of the first. I may have treated the first film unfairly because for all its trashiness, it's an extremely original concept. However, the same cannot be said for this sequel. It's entertaining, but it's just rehashing the same plotline as the first. Regardless of its psychotic humor and original twists, it's just not as funny or original as the first film. It delivers on a purely adrenaline level, but beyond that, it's an extremely shallow experience. Perhaps I'm judging it all wrong, but "Crank: High Voltage" is hardly a film, and although it entertains, it is far from a quality production. Suffice to say, it's as good as it can be.

"Knowing" is this year's "The Happening": an unfortunately bad film containing an interesting premise done by a formerly talented director. It's sad that Alex Proyas, the man responsible for "Dark City", could stoop to create a B-thriller about the end of the world. What's even worse is that this B-thriller is another step in the descent of Nicholas Cage, a truly talented actor whose bad films are starting to outnumber his good ones. "Knowing" is a thoroughly incomprehensible jumble of biblical prophecies and extraterrestrial albinos. It looks slick, and the plane crash scene is handled particularly well, but the visuals are hollow vehicles to try to wow people through mindless carnage and destruction, as well as destroy their eardrums through nauseatingly loud sound-effects (the vision of the world burning shown to Caleb is perhaps the loudest scene I've ever witnessed in a film). The upside to all this confusing noise is that Knowing is a particularly entertaining film. It's fun, sometimes scary, and Nicholas Cage is hilarious to watch. The subway scene is undoubtedly one of the funniest scenes in recent years. All in all, "Knowing" is like a B-movie of the past: it's poorly done but quite enjoyable due to its lack of quality, and is sure to show up on movie geeks' shelves in the future, occupying a spot reserved for schlock entertainment alongside "The Happening" and "Twilight".

(Review Coming)

(Review Coming)

When people attack the stupidity of summer blockbusters, it is films like "Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen" and "G.I. Joe: The Rise of Cobra" that make their arguments valid. Both are based on popular toy lines, have preposterously high budgets ranging in the hundreds of millions, and are absolutely stupid. "G.I. Joe: The Rise of Cobra" is perhaps the biggest blunder of the year, albeit less directly offensive than "Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen". Where that film seemed envisioned by an immature, misogynistic, hyperactive man-child, "G.I. Joe" seems to be a product of the imagination of an 8 year-old boy. If you've ever seen an 8 year-old boy playing with his action figures, then you'll know how the adventures he creates ignore the laws of physics, centre around swords and fights and ninjas and explosions, have characters with 'cool' names who have no personalities except for their 'super skills', and don't make any sense whatsoever. It's perfectly fine and normal when these things apply to a boy's imaginary adventures, but when they apply to a 200 hundred million dollar movie, there's a problem. "G.I. Joe: The Rise of Cobra" has no real characters, no real plot, no real emotions, no real value. If your major concern when seeing a movie is whether there are ninjas fighting in it, then "G.I. Joe" will appeal to you. But if you are an adult with a properly functioning brain, "G.I. Joe: The Rise of Cobra" should seem a mindless, laughable, utterly stupid film. It barely counts as a film, so why should we treat it as one?

"Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen" is as loud and overblown as a movie can get. It may contain a story somewhere behind all the explosions and jokes and robots hitting each other. It may contain some interesting action scenes that may be entertaining if only you could comprehend what was occurring on the screen instead of the choppily edited, nauseatingly frenetic blurs that you do see. It may have good acting behind all the cliches and overacting and non-acting (I'm looking at you Megan Fox). It may have good special effects if only they weren't put to the use of making racial mockeries. It may be the best movie of the year, but only in a universe where down is up. The first "Transformers" movie could be lightly enjoyed the first time, but when you choose to view it a second time, its stupidity became impossible to ignore. "Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen" has no first-time grace period. It's a dumb, long, loud, offensive, boring, incomprehensible mess by one of Hollywood's worst directors, or maybe he's one of its best? If you're an idiot, you may think that, but I prefer to respect my own intelligence and denounce this God-awful film.