On going list of the best movies of 2009

I remember talk to my good flixster friend Riley about "Up" and we mentioned that men don't cry, we just have mist coming out of our eyes during movies. Well ladies and gentlemen, you could be mother f*cking love child of but your going to weep like a 5 year old who just stubbed his toe watching "Precious". The best way to describe this film is a poetic sukerpunch of a masterpiece. Yes I get it the story has been done a million times. Poor, illiterate black girl trying to make life better for herself but trust me nothing prepares you for the sheer power of this film.
Part of the reason for this is that when you look at the cast and director clearly showing a love for the novel and a personal connection with the character that it brings out unforeseen power in everyone involved. Seriously how in all hell does the star of "Glitter" and the host if "Charm School" pull this off? Simply put then cut the bull sh*t out of their performances. Mariah Carey pulling a complete 180 degree turn, proves to have the subtlety and fearlessness that suggests that personally makes "Glitter" nothing but a real bad memory in my eyes as far as her career goes. Also props to Lenny Kravitz for a very solid acting debut.
However, every year there is one performance, that just blows everything else out there, like a hurricane of performance. This year it has to be Mo'Nique as the abusive mother. Why because anyone can play the b*tch from hell and make her an absolute monster and that would be fine. What she does here is go past all of that and finds the tormented and tragic soul Mary and makes us even sympathize to a certain degree. Its a risk not even the majority of Hollywood's A-list is willing to take but Mo'Nique runs with it and excels.
Though lets not take the credit from two less showy but equally powerful performances. Paula Patton is given the most difficult job here, providing the source of light in a film that is about as dark as an Alaskian night and without the big oscar moments is sure to be the most overlooked performance of the year. Which is unfortunate because she is amazing here, there is nothing sugar coated and certain about her teacher role but its her drive and hope that sets up the film's spirit.
Though none of this would be any good if the lead did not deliver and Gabourey 'Gabby' Sidbie is something that cannot even be described, it simply has to be seen.
As for director Lee Daniels, I got to admit this is a huge surprise for me. Not being a big fan of "Shadowboxer" but what he does here is amazing. What is essentially a combination of a black "A Serious Man" and a Tyler Perry, Daniels delivers an amazing understanding for both the darkness and beauty of life and none of it feels either corny or preachy but not overly dark and hopeless. Its amazing accomplishment and I'll be the one of many pushing for the academy to give this man the credit he deserves. As everyone else involved in this masterpiece.
So how do I end this review, simply put "Precious" is not a film I recommend you see or hint that it maybe worth your time depending on your mood. This is a film you MUST see! Seriously can't find a screening near you I'll look, I'll pick you up, hell if it comes down to it I'll even pay for your ticket. Just don't miss this movie!

Perfection is a very interesting word. No matter what you experience there is always ways it could be better. So to me the closest one can get to perfection is when even with flaws that may seem jarring to some or all, you would not dare to see it anyway other way.
This is exactly the way I feel about "Where The Wild Things Are", a film that is sure to divide right now but that no one can deny is as visionary, pure and heart breaking as filmmaking gets.
Spike Jonze I have to say, this was five years well spent. An almost unbelievable combination of Maurice Sendak's vision and Jonze's own unique touch, he essentially just showed everyone in hollywood how the hell your suppose to adapt a story much more impressive considering the book is less then 400 words. Why does the film work? Jonze understands the difference between a film about children vs. a film that understands children.
I cannot praise the amazing cast enough but the two that stand out are Max Records and James Gandolfini. Records was born for this role, giving one of the best child performances of the decade and making Max an icon for all the emotions that we associate with childhood. As for Gandolfini, this his best film performance to date as the lead monster Carol, showing all the rage and sorrow that he did during his long run in The Sopranos but also a much gentler side that turns him into one of the most lovable angry teddy bears in cinema yet.
Now as I mentioned this is not a perfect film. Some may have problems with a lack of a traditional plot, slower moments and its darker moments are going to scare younger children. This is a film that is going to have to grow on some people. Its more "400 Blows" then "Sherk", to be honest I don't care.
Jonze's "Where The Wild Things Are" brings the heart and sense of danger that have been sorely lacking in children's films in the last decade. If any film was to rank with "The Wizard of Oz" fifty years from now, I'd put my money on this one.

"It matters not how strait the gate,
How charged with punishments the scroll.
I am the master of my fate:
I am the captain of my soul."
Invictus by William Ernest Henley
There are many films that preach the importance of teamwork and the ability to change and forgive. However, it is rare to find a film that actually believes this message. I am ecstatic to write that Clint Eastwood's latest masterpiece "Invictus" (Latin for "unconquered") is one those very special films. In a time when technology seems to dominate the cinema, Eastwood proves all you need in order to leave the audience speechless is a great story and a bit of passion.
Based on John Carlin's book Playing the Enemy: Nelson Mandela and the Game That Changed a Nation?, "Invictus" is a look at newly elected President Nelson Mandela's (Morgan Freeman) attempts to bring the people of post-apartheid South Africa together through the Springboks, the country's national Rugby team. With the assistance of team leader Francois Pienaar (Matt Damon), they aspire to win the 1995 Rugby World Cup Championship.
In what just may be the most obvious bit of casting in the history of the world, Morgan Freeman is nothing short of phenomenal as Mandela. In his third collaboration with director Clint Eastwood, Freeman is allowed to develop the character naturally and it is through simple facial expressions and small details in body language that we are given some insight into the history of Mandela. Sure there are moments where the script portrays Mandela as a god amongst men, but looking into Freeman?s eyes, you see a flawed but brave figure, willing to make the sacrifices to better those around him. In one of the rare times Freeman is given a leading role, he steps up to the challenge and delivers one of the most charismatic performances of his career.
Matt Damon is also very strong as Francois Pienaar, for not only did he need to demonstrate a convincing South African accent but he also is given the difficult task of creating a realistic character arc from hopeless captain to a symbol of national unity. Damon does this and more bringing the needed grace, confidence and determination to a character that could have been easily overshadowed by the towering presence of Nelson Mandela.
However the magic of this film comes mainly from director Eastwood, who gives the film the mature, no-bull approach a film like "Invictus" needs and at age seventy-nine, shows filmmakers half his age how to get the job done. While some may find flaws in the approach towards Mandela's personal life, I will argue that Eastwood is simply looking at the bigger picture. He does not try to hide his main character?s troubles as some other biographies have done in the past (I'm looking at you "A Beautiful Mind"!): his past is just an unimportant element of a story that is about something much bigger than any single individual. Mandela never attempted to present himself as a saint but was a man willing to forgive others for so many mistakes. Had the film gone deeply into Mandela's personal troubles, it would have strayed from the film's themes.
Overall "Invictus" is less about the man and more about his message. Personally, I cannot imagine Mandela's message in better and more honest hands than Eastwood?s. Even when he occasionally indulges in cliché (particularly in the final match, where Eastwood follows Zac Synder's rule of slow motion making everything more intense), you never feel as though he is talking down to or manipulating the audience.
It would be easy to call "Invictus" great entertainment or an Oscar contender but that would be seriously undermining the power of the film. Eastwood and his amazing cast and crew give "Invictus" the spirit of a champion. The only way to give the film the praise it deserves is to say that it is a reminder of why we fell in love with movies to begin with.

Really what do you do when you have had 9 straight critical and commercial hits in a row? Well if your Pixar you make film #10 the most emotional mature and stunning feature yet even if it is not there best (cough "Wall-E" cough). This in one word is Up, a combination of heart-breaking romance, epic adventure and simple but outstanding story telling.
What is it about this film that makes it so effective? Carl Fredricksen,yes he comes off as the typical stingy old man at first but he is the most developed and complex character from Pixar yet but is as easy to love as just about as any of the other characters. Hell just after the first 15 minutes I wanted to give my grandfather a giant hug.
Simply put Up just pushes towards another high in animation and hell does it come close.

Usually you'll see one of two types of films here the Coen brothers. The slapstick comedy with extremely dark undertones or the extremely dark and rather cold drama. Not this is a bad thing because they do both better then 98% of the filmmakers out there, just I don't think anyone can say that the Coens are guys who are the emotional type.
This alone make "A Serious Man" a event for most filmgoers. The fact that the Coens strip down the layers of their reputation as filmmakers and expose that rare sense of insecurity and confusion and still have a masterly crafted that could be nothing but a Coen Brothers film proves just how gifted these guys really are.
As I said it has all the touches of classic Coens, the Minnesota setting, Roger Deakins' mastery of the camera and the main protagonist is having a really terrible day.
The poor bastard this time around is Larry Gopnik, played by Michael Stuhlbarg in what is a oscar worthy performance. As Stuhlbarg puts that human face on the many profound philosophical questions about God and life that arise in the film. Showcasing a subtle rage that is lost within a string of events as the film progresses. The rest of the cast filled with entirely unknowns is also quite solid and points must always be given to a film that understands a perfect use of music in a film. (The fact its Jefferson Airplane is the more impressive.)
This is another one that I suspect will divide people when they first see it mostly because as you can expect from a Coen Brothers flick there are millions of questions, none with anything close to answer. (As though you can seriously answer Why God allows bad things to happen to good people.) However through multiple viewings I can only see "A Serious Man" getting better and better as you get caught in the Shakspeare plot and the film's dark but humane humor. Its that spellbinder of a film that you only see when a filmmaker has nothing more to prove but at the same time have everything to proof. This is a test that the Coens pass with flying colors.

You are going to have to forgive my review being a bit late passing by all the Watchmen hype and the box office as evidence that people didn't get the "new Dark Knight" that they were expecting. Which is a shame because Watchmen is Zack Snyder's mess of a masterpiece.
Being a fan of the graphic novel I knew Snyder had to have balls of steel to take on the film. With so much material in just 2 hours and 43 minutes film and so many complex story lines, this is a film down to the bare essentials of the Watchmen universe but still maintains the dark tone and complexity of the characters. In other words no matter what you think of the film you won't find another studio film this year this brave or interesting.
From a visual standpoint Watchmen is nothing short of breath taking. Great effects (In particular the palace on Mars is one of the best CGI backgrounds ever.), nice costumes and set pieces. However the aspect that makes this film as great is the performances. Billy Crudup is flat out perfect as Dr. Manhattan, his voice is the perfect combination of longing and isolation that was needed for the role. Jeffery Dean Morgan gives a star making turn as Edward (The Comedian) Blake and as the soul of the film Jackie Earle Haley gives the first iconic performance of the year. Also some terrific performances from Patrick Wilson and Matthew Goode who I thought was a perfect choice for the role.
That being said its not perfect (cough Malin Akerman cough) Its a thought provoking future classic that ranks second Nolan's Batman film as the best graphic novel film and our generation's Blade Runner

Its strange to imagine how a film would have done had it been released in a different time. For example "Funny People" seems like one of those character pieces that would have been huge in the late 60s and early 70s but in modern times got lost somewhere between Transformers and G.I Joe with audiences.
Which a shame considering its easily the riskiest and most personal film from either Sandler or Apatow and they do a solid job with the material... for the first hour and 45 minutes.
I'll start with the good in saying that Adam Sandler has never been better as an actor. While you never actually like George Simmons per say (Dude's an *ssh*le simply put.) he's always compelling, complex and feel for a guy who has everything but absolutely nothing at the same time. Also Seth Rogen shows that he can do more then chubby, lovable stoner, trying to balance an overwhelming amount of
Not to say that there is anything that seems dated about the film but its tragic to think that something this personal and mature gets ignored.
Which is a shame, while "Funny People" isn't the best work from Apatow but if its any indication of the future, his glory days are right around the corner.

"Zombieland" has everything you ask for in the title alone, the fact that it also happens to be really funny and well-developed, likable characters that makes it way better then any zombie film really needs.
As far as plot goes there is not a whole lot to explain, just 81 minutes of some of the most amazing zombie kills rank with Romero at his peak. While it doesn't have some of the flair or visionary style of those films. Writer and director Ruben Fleischer make up for those shortcomings through an excellent cast and dialogue. Everyone fits there role perfectly, while I'll personally have a special place in my heart for Michael Cera, Jesse Eisenberg is slowly taking over for it nerd, plus he shoots the crap out of zombies which always gives someone the edge. The scene stealer here though is Woody Harrelson, who seems to have never had as much fun with one movie as he does here while adding a surprising depth to the hillbilly with a shotgun role. Plus Emma Stone with a chainsaw makes me super weak in the knees. Add in what I'd argue is the greatest cameo EVER and you got yourself a good old time at the movies.
Its certainly not perfect but has everything you could ask for from the genre plus a bunch of great surprises that makes it worth the trip to the theatre.

It is interesting to watch how stories can change depending on the director's style.
In this case director Tony Scott turned a quieter intense thriller into a balls-out action film that only Scott can deliver. Which just happens to be both one of the film's strong points as well as its biggest flaw. Yes it is quite distinctive from the 1974 film but it is also more or less the exact same film from any other Tony Scott in the last decade. All flaws and total disinterest in logic in place.
Luckily that means all the strongest points of Tony Scott's film, in particular the cast. With his fourth film with Scott, Denzel Washington is once again solid as the lead. Providing a quiet strength and flawed everyman needed for the character and never being attention to the his star power. It just goes to show how strong he really is as an actor.
Now on the polar opposite of subtle, John Travolta dials his performance up to 11 and loves every second of it. Its great to see Travolta back in "Face/Off" mode and is actually the funniest time I've had at a Travolta film in a long time.
Both actors provide great sense of conflict and find an equal level realism and crazy fun and for a solid 2/3s of the film it keeps that balance.
Then comes the ending, which throws out just about everything that was good about this film out of the window and just becomes an bombardment of annoying cuts, frantic camera work and cars crashing all over the place, as though I was re-living my driver's test all over again. Which is a shame because Scott has a really great story here but he just can't stay still and let the story tell itself.
So what your left with is a solid rental and a fun popcorn film but nothing near as great as the first film.