Movies of 2008

(There will be spoilers, but not major ones, just fyi.)
The masterpiece I was hoping for. At first as the movie went on, I thought it was going to not trump Batman Begins, but my god was I wrong. Just like the Joker's constantly changing background story about his scars, the movie seems to constantly continue to present twists and turns that are brilliant beyond words.

The cast: Christian Bale is brilliant as always with his charming, yet conflicted nature storming him with personal vendettas that only the greatest heroes could ever trump. Bale is the most talented actor working in Hollywood right alongside Daniel Day-Lewis, even if that man is a monster of a god among actors. The supporting cast (Morgan Freeman, Maggie Gyllenhaal, and Michael Caine) are all fantastic and help keep the foundation of the story amazing. Sadly, despite him being one of my favorite actors, Michael Caine suffers from not having enough involvement. Don't get me wrong, he's still spectacular, but I didn't get to see all the charm he brought in the first film as much. That's probably the movie's weakest point. Still, everything scene Caine is in stands as a highlight of the whole movie. Next comes Freeman who I especially love and his performance is full of depth that the first movie did not show. Really great stuff. Then there's Maggie. Wow. So much better than Katie Holmes even though I still admire her performance in the first one. It was brilliant as well.

Then there's Gary Oldman. If the man wasn't a legend already, he cements himself in the records as a brilliant actor in the role he seemed born to play, as Gordon. The man cannot be praised enough, juggling his constant duties as a police officer who is around people who hate the Batman, and cooperating with him at the same time.

Two of the biggest performances most people were most anxious to see were Heath Ledger and Aaron Eckhart. Heath Ledger, how can I put this, deserves every Oscar of the last ten years. Okay so obviously he doesn't, but it is definitely true he needs the nomination at the least. I obviously can't speak for him winning it right now because all the movies of the year have not been released but still, it's the best performance of the year so far. The chaotic, psychotic nature of the Joker is so masterfully done that Jack Nicholson's performance of the Joker is put to shame, no matter how much I like it as well. Nicholson got nominated for the Joker in '89 so Ledger better get it as well, or I'll be mad as hell and won't take it anymore.

The biggest surprise though was Eckhart. He did not have the best performance, however he came in a pretty close second and blew me away. He should not have been as overshadowed as he has been from Ledger's performance because it has the power and emotion that any great performance has. Brilliant stuff. The performances are what make this movie truly spectacular and a shining example of what an actor should bring to the screen.

Nolan is a top director and his script shows it. He now has three masterpieces on his hands (the other two being Batman Begins and The Prestige) so anything he does from now on has to be watched closely because it will probably be great. But seriously though, this is a prime example of a harrowing tragedy, with everything around Batman falling down around him, the Joker one step ahead of him. Never have I been on such a roller coaster of an experience with a story in a theater with suspense that I have not seen since the days of Hitchcock.

The cinematography is gorgeous, the score genius (seriously), and just about everything you could think of. The Dark Knight shows that comic book movies are no longer just light summer fluff, no. TDK has set a standard that if future comic book adaptations don't even come near to this movie, they will fail because they don't feel like art, which this movie is. I can only imagine where they will go from here (if Nolan and Bale do not come back, I will be furious), but there are plenty of avenues to explore that could make the next Batman film just as bloody brilliant as this one. If you don't think this is as close to perfect as you can get, you obviously do not appreciate movies. God bless you Heath Ledger.

2nd Viewing Response - Not only is it just as good, but scenes that seemed a little weak were made stronger by knowing where the movie was going. Morgan Freeman's performance wasn't as good as I remembered though. It was great of course, but not AMAZING. And I have to give Bale more credit than I did because nothing was going to top his performance in the first one, his origin story.

Wall-E is without a doubt Pixar's most ambitious project to date. Toy Story was a revolutionary step forward in animation and since then, it seemed like that major step forward would overshadow everything else they made after it (much like M. Night and the effect The Sixth Sense had on him). Things shaped up though after the release of Ratatouille last year and that great film only made Wall-E even more anticipated. He was just so damn adorable. By the time the movie came into theaters, people were dying to know whether Pixar would deliver again. And without a doubt, they certainly did.

The story revolves around a robot who is on a deserted planet Earth cleaning up the trash, which is what he is programmed to do, stacking them up in high buildings. And that's about as basic as it gets. You get a "love" interest added on sometime later with EVE and eventually move onto a spaceship were we see what happened to human beings. All that is interesting, but the true beauty lies with Wall-E himself. He has an undeniable charm that is infectious and will warm even the darkest of hearts. Reminders of Chaplin cross through the audience as almost the entire first 20-30 minutes is without any dialogue of any sort. The silence creeps up on the audience capturing a serene, but haunting landscape of destruction and beauty. Pixar crafted a beautiful movie, but not in there traditional sense. This world that Wall-E is in is a dark, apocalyptic environment that has rich detail in every building, item, and etc. bringing to life one of the most breathtaking animated movie to date. You have to see it to believe it.

Like I said the character Wall-E is incredible and the first 30 minutes of this film are easily a masterpiece among other great works of art. So what about the rest of the film? Well, it definitely works, but not quite on the same level. EVE doesn't add anything that Wall-E has not already brought to the screen, but her presence brings out even more charm from Wall-E has he consistently tries to charm her when she seems to not even care. Eventually they become friends of sorts and it is charming to see a romance more powerful than any shitty romantic films Hollywood likes to churn out constantly. She soon finds what she was programmed to find on Earth, and the story transcends briefly into a tragic love story. These moments in the film are equally spectacular as the beginning.

What comes after this though is the weak point in the movie. A bunch of politics of sorts ease its way into the film, most of which I care not to get into, mostly because they only work on a simple way. Delving too deep into these politics would be besides the point that Pixar made, or so I would think. The fact is that although Pixar took great measures to please adult audiences, this stands as a children's movie. That said, it still has far too many subtle things that adults can pick up on that will keep them interested throughout the 2nd half of the film, while the children are entertained by the mayhem that ensues on the screen.

I can't think of much else to say right now about Wall-E because so much of the movie you have to see for yourself to completely understand why its Pixar's best film yet. Do yourself a favor and make sure you see this near masterpiece in a theater, to experience something truly magical.

Why is In Bruges one of my favorite films of the year? Because not only is it hilarious, it's also a hard hitting thriller with moral precautions that even some of the best dramas have trouble properly conveying onscreen. Also it's one of Colin Farrell's best roles ever. This movie hit me like a brick to the head for whatever reason, though I'm sure a little town called Bruges had something to do with it.

Although Colin Farrel is amazing here, the real scene stealer is Brendan Gleeson. I really liked him in 28 Days Later, but In Bruges has him coming in as his own as an actor, at least from what I've seen from him. These two men are hit men that have been sent to Bruge for whatever reason. They have no idea. Ray (Farrell) recently messed up a hit and killed a child by accident and is haunting him everyday. And that's about all you need to know coming into this film. The story moves along swimmingly and feels alive and vibrant with cleverly written dialogue and beautiful set pieces. I cannot stress the dark humor in In Bruge enough because it is that good. I had no idea I could be laughing at a movie this hard when the next movie my mouth is wide open from some gruesome death or violence. It's pretty brilliant and Martin McDonagh more than proves himself as a visually talented director.

Like I said earlier, the acting is incredible and mainly centers around Farrell and Gleeson, with some Ralph Fiennes thrown in for good measure. These three have so much chemistry together that this could have been a film about growing a garden and I still would have been entertained. The supporting cast is also great with many of those "that guys" doing a more than competent job.

Once again I'll mention the script. This should probably be published and be a mandatory read for any aspiring film student. It's that good in my opinion. It oozes witty dialogue and laugh out comments that rival some of the big comedies of the summer and year. The whole film manages to be a dark comedy, intense action thriller, and thoughtful drama all at once and is spectacular to say the least. Genre blending is hard to pull off but McDonagh manages to do it.

I can't begin to express my love for this film. It's so refreshingly new without being too much to handle at first. It adds dimensions to characters that are normally so shallow and one-dimensional and the humor is spot on almost always. Shakespearean tragedy comes to mind when watching In Bruge - its tragic in its scope yet ironically sarcastic and witty in its tone.

Slumdog opens up with a bang and leads to a question appearing on screen, a la Who Wants to Be a Millionaire. We're asked whether Jamal has won the show by either cheating, being lucky, or if it was written. Yet ironically, the show Jamal is on, the centerpiece of the film, is not the best part of it, though it probably has some of the most humor. No, it is in fact the flashbacks where we are told of Jamal's life and the simple, yet beautiful love between him and Lakita. Boyle manages to take a stale idea about love and makes it fresh again in one of his best films.

Jamal (Dev Patel) is a slumdog living in the poverty stricken areas of Mumbai, India. He is a sincere boy, much like the main protagonist from City of God with which this film holds several comparisons towards, and is easily sympathized with from the beginning. He is the Oliver Twist of our generation. His life story is told through intricate weaving of flashbacks through the game show he is on and in his interegation, where somehow the men that electrocute him do not understand how a slumdog could be so intelligent and sincere. Despite this and all the dangers and perils Jamal encountered in his life, he survives. His energy is infectious like the rest of the film.

Through the flashbacks, we meet characters like Lakita (Freida Pinto), the love interest of Jamal who endures as much trauma and pain, if not more, as him, who has a strong vitality of life and endures on. Both her and Jamal represent something all of us could use a little more of in these hard stricken times: hope. Jamal's brother Salim (Madhur Mittal), shows what happens to the other poverty children, where corruption and desperation seeps in and anything will be done in order to be on top and away from the bottom in which they had been stuck at. He joins mobs, does horrendous acts to people, yet he's not totally nonredeemable by the end. There's always hope.

The mainstream audience is hardly exposed to the degregation and poverty of India, and trust me, its there. Some have complained that Boyle glamorizes poverty, but its obvious they are watching a different movie. His highly stylized and frenetic camera movement does not make the poverty seem any less gritty, rather its just a technical move which is highly effective and captivating film making. If the favelas seem like the type of place you want to live in, well then all the power to you. But Boyle's use of authentic locations bring out the dirty, grimy world many inhabitants of India have to endure on a daily basis, in a country far too over populated. One shot shows Jamal running through the streets of the favelas and Boyle pulls back the camera three times, finally coming back far enough to reveal the long stretches these poorly made homes and stalls extend out to. It is a breathtaking moment.

The rest of the relatively unknown cast, such as Prem (Anil Kapoor) and Inspector (Irfan Khan) round out the movie with memorable and outstanding performances. The amount of heart present throughout is tremendous and makes for one of the most uplifting movies of the year, even if some horrible things do happen. And those horrible scenes are really that terrifying - one scene involving spoons and eyes will certainly stick with you long after the movie ends. Yet the humor is here too and a few red chilies are guaranteed to put a smile on your face. The whole experience is one long, speeding bullet of energy and magic, fable like qualities.

Danny Boyle has proven to be a master of genres, whether it be horror, drug related, comedy, sci-fi, family, and now Bollywood/romance films. I don't know how much longer he can keep this up, but hopefully forever. I obviously loved this film and it will go down as something that people, and myself, will remember for years.

The movie ends. Several people clap, but it is most likely done in sarcasm as I could hear their snickering throughout about the many absurdities shown onscreen. As I precede to leave the theater, I hear words thrown around like "existentialism", "ridiculous", and "retarded" to describe what they just saw. My parents hated the movie. They complained about it the whole way home, at one point my father saying he would rather "have his balls torn apart by rabid squirrels for 2 hours" instead of seeing it again, or seeing it in the first place. I was left confused, dazed unaware of what in the world had just happened. Did Kaufman concoct a masterpiece of the human mind and spirit or lose his way and point by the end like so many people tend to do? All I can firmly say right now is that it is an experience I would never change or what to have not gone through. This is a film that demands a second viewing from the audience to appreciate it for its subtleties and vast ideas of the meaning of life spread throughout.

I can easily say more than half the people that see this will label it is as pretentious. How could you not? Look up the definition of the word and basically this movie fits the description...for those that don't try to find the answers or cannot be contempt with being left uncertain of those answers. The plot doesn't matter. This story is about all people's lives and you will soon be confused about who's who and the whole context of the main character. It's okay, Kaufman probably meant it that way. Somewhere in the movie, a character says when all is done and said, everyone is their own leading actor and that no one is watching you as you lead your life. There are no extras revolving around your life because each of them have their own lives. You cannot expect them to be who you want them to be; they will be what they want themselves to be. All of this is very profound and by the end I believe Hoffman's character realizes this. But for the majority of the movie - and maybe even at the end - the character Hoffman plays is the definition of a selfish person. He only sees himself in everything, hence the extras in his life, etc.

And that leads me into the acting. It's pretty incredible. Philip Seymour Hoffman is a phenomenal actor and I love everything he does, even the mediocre and boring Charlie Wilson's War. It almost seems like he was born to play this role; pitch perfect. Both Samantha Morton and Emily Watson were in this, but I have a hard time right now recalling who played who. It doesn't matter; they were both great in their roles too, representing a confused and muddled woman who has no idea where to go. Hope Davis was also hilarious in her role with her best selling "novels". I can't stress enough how fantastic these actors and actresses were in their roles because that is what makes the movie stupendous and moving.

While Kaufman's newest movie is profound and movie, it is certainly not perfect. The whole idea of the warehouse and NY inside of it is a great one, but it does not exactly equate to something interesting or comprehensible. Repeat viewings might make more sense of it, but as it stands it leaves audiences viewing the movie for the first time lost and confused taking them away from Kaufman's ideas and interesting characters. Also, I have heard this movie is about 200 scenes, twice as many as a normal movie of this length; this is both good and bad. By having this he can display many lives in their full context without interruption, yet at the same time it is too much to handle and everything starts to blend together and become muddled; Kaufman just throws so much at the audience. The movie easily feels like 3 hours at the least. It's enough to make a grown man want to tear his hair out in frustration. Once again though, this is a problem that could be solved with multiple viewings, if anybody even has the patience for that after the first time of having their brain raped with information. The film is more of a joy in the sense that it is so remarkable to watch; definitely not even close to the most entertaining movie I have seen this year though due to the fact that it simply makes you physically and mentally exhausted.

For this experience, I came up with an analogy: it's like eating a whole pie all at once; it's nearly impossible to do. By taking it one slice at a time you can enjoy it and appreciate it but all together will only make you sick and nauseous. See what I did there? Anyways despite the flaws throughout the movie, which may in fact only be flaws with myself and my intelligence, I still full heartedly recommend seeing this as soon as possible. It's life at it's core seen on screen, as simple and complex as that is.

2nd Viewing Response:
There's so much to say, yet I don't feel like it right now. Quite a bit more has come to light after a rewatch, yet I still feel so alienated. This will be great to own one day. More to come later, maybe.

After all the negative buzz coming from this, I was expecting something not entertaining. But I was left feeling satisfied, at least somewhat, after wards. Many of the problems that existed in the movie for the most part were at the beginning with some shoddy editing skills (a.k.a rip-off of the Bourne movies). After that though, I found myself enjoying the ride for what it was. The thing is, I don't think people get what this movie is about. Sure there's some stuff about water and oil and such, but it is really about Bond. The way he acts here is not unreasonable. He's a man that's seen too much. Gone is his newly appointed 007 status. He has become a much more hardened man. His "mindless" actions are more of how he feels about the world and life, caring less about what is going on around him. Also, the sparks do not fly between him and the main Bond girl (whatever her name was) because they are not supposed to. You see at the end that their might be a connection, but that is only after he has on gone on his quest to find revenge, or to find his way again. Watch Casino Royale again. You'll understand why everything that happens in the movie makes sense. Should have been longer though.

Well I watched the first Hellboy again recently since I had forgotten most of it, and still found I liked it. So I came in excited for Hellboy 2, hoping that maybe, just maybe, it could possibly be a little better. Sadly, that's not the case. That's not to say it's not entertaining in its own right, I always appreciate some good mindless fun, but del Toro pushed it a bit too much this time.

One of the main problems has to be the story. First off, I don't give a damn about it. Nothing throughout the entire movie made me feel anything towards caring what happened next. And besides that, it feels like he took Lord of the Rings material and stuck his name on it and called it Hellboy. If you really sit there and pay attention (I know it can be hard to do), everything starts to seem derivative and extremely bland. The whole movie almost feels like a big, fat paycheck waiting for del Toro so he can do more genius productions like Pan's Labyrinth. Maybe knowing he was going to do The Hobbit after this influenced some of his decisions and ideas, I don't know.

Good news: John Hurt is a joy to watch like always. And Ron Perlman maintains the same over-the-top persona that made Hellboy himself so damn entertaining.
Bad news: Selma Blair still can't act. And that's fact.

So the story sucks and some of the cast cannot act, what is there then to look forward to? What del Toro does best of course, pretty visuals and some kick ass action. Okay, so he does more than that most of the time, but man is the movie visually stimulating. He's a man that has a knack for these things and the beautiful imagery helps enhance the remarkable choreography of the fights.

It's not that I do not like Hellboy, as I enjoyed the first movie, but the almost blatant rip-off of LotR and annoying romance sub-plots (there was some humor to be had though so it wasn't all bad), make this a disappointing follow up to the original. I'm up for a re-watch sometime in the future and maybe I'll enjoy it some more, but for now it seems too much like a quick cash in.

Well it's finally here. And of course the big aching question for all: was it worth the wait? In short, yes. But it should be noted here that hype can kill any movie. Yes, a movie should be as great as possible but people have unreasonable expectations for it. Obviously, The Dark Knight lived up to it, but in a year so full of great movies, they seem like disappointments with all the ridiculous hype. But enough ranting. That said, this was still very entertaining.

Probably at this moment, it's my 3rd favorite of the 4, but that might change upon repeat viewings. The main thing the movie doesn't do wrong is emphasize on Jones being old. If Spielberg had done that, the movie would have gotten old fast (no pun intended) and the audience's interest lost. Thankfully Spielberg crafts Ford's character as badass as he ever was. CGI also worried many people, creating the impression that the original feel of the first 3 movies would be lost. But one's got to remember that back in the 80's, those movies were also constantly finding ways to outdo themselves with impressive visuals. It's just now, the industry has CGI. But even still, the CGI isn't overdone with only maybe 3 scenes total that are heavily CGI centered. For the most part, CGI never gets in the way of the film.

The acting by everyone was pretty exceptional. Harrison Ford still had the best performance of the movie, but Cate Blanchett followed close behind. Her performance might have bordered on stereotypical of "the Reds" at times, but she was still phenomenal, as cold and haunting as ever. John Hurt performed well too, but nothing too extraordinary. And Karen was Karen. Which leaves us with Shia LeBouef. What's there to say about him? Has he ever truly played a deep and emotional character up to now? He's been in I, Robot, Disturbia, and Transformers, to name a few. He's not exactly the deepest of character actors, as of now. Then again, the role he's in doesn't need a truly extraordinary actor. He does do a fairly great job in the movie though, as the comic relief known as "Mutt" Williams. For most of the movie, he's a typical grease-ball of the 50's, combing his hair back constantly. And that really does get annoying the 100th time he does it. But later on in the movie, he gets the chance to stretch his acting muscles a bit especially with emotional scenes involving his stepfather and such. (SPOILER) It's a little cliche to see Mutt be the son of Jones and doesn't really come as a surprise to the audience when the reveal comes, but does give the chance to have a strong bond form between LeBouef and Ford. (END SPOILER) Overall, everyone performed well, but besides Ford, everyone had room to improve to reach greatness.

With the CGI, action scenes became more explosive and intense. The major car chase scene, while over dramatic, was still awesome. Also the scene with the ants has got to be one of the most chilling scenes in all of the 4 movies. That could have not been done easily, if at all, back in the 80's. The part in the beginning where all the crates explode after the car drives through them made no sense, and the whole magnetism thing was a complete stretch.

One of the most important aspects of the movie is the story, and overall it's kind of a mixed bag. On one hand, it maintains the historical-ness of the first and third movie, not pulling any of that Temple of Doom cult stuff, which is a good thing...until the Crystal Skull is found. (SPOILER) The whole alien aspect of the story just seems silly. I understand how it ties into Indy's whole "not believing in supernatural crap", but still, Lucas and Spielberg should have left their love of extra-terrestrials out of the Indy franchise. Everything about the flying saucer and the aliens "being one" was out of place and just an excuse to actually think of some historical artifact to chase after. Or something along those lines. The story still didn't get too destroyed by all the aliens, so overall it was still fun and exciting.

Raiders of the Lost Ark, Temple of Doom, and the Last Crusade all are amazing films. And so is the latest Indiana Jones movie. It combines all of the exciting elements of the previous films, providing a fun and exciting follow up to the first three films. Anyone who is a fan of the Indiana Jones movies or of action/adventure movies to begin with, should go see this, as its full of charm and character. Here's hoping that Indy 5 will be equally as great, if not better, than Crystal Skull. And yes, there will be another; its basically spelled out all over the movie.

Edward Zwick is a relatively good director (i.e. Glory, Blood Diamond) and it stars Daniel Craig so this could be pretty good.