On going list of worst movies of 2009

You know what, to a certain degree I don't really need to write a review for "Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen". Everything you need to know comes from fans of the film. Amazing film as long as you don't think too hard about it or you know expect anything good but stuff blows up real good. Look I'm all for action films and guilty pleasures but "Revenge of the Fallen" is neither. To call it an example of hollywood at its laziest, dumbest and most soul-sucking would be an insult to everything else in hollywood. I'd like to believe its some evil $250 million budgeted experiment of seeing how far you could push its audience AND still be suckered in.
Okay so to save you from this horrible fate, I'll debunk every .
Action scenes: Let me warn you right now, in a 2 and a half hour flick there is about 25, count em' 25 MINUTES of action! So in between the action scene, you have terrible and uncomfortable jokes about everything between sex and drugs and if that is not enough then how about black face and women jokes that would make audiences in the 1950s cringe. (More on that latter.)
Amazing effects: Look there's a difference between a lot of money and good visual effects. "District 9"= Good visual effects, "Revenge of the Fallen"= expensive effects that still look kind of corny by today's standards. Follow this example and you should be able to understand the difference.
Megan Fox is mighty pretty: Well my friends I have a new found invention, one where you can enjoy looking at her ass minus the crap acting. Welcome to the wonderful world of internet porn.
My final point
Its about time somebody understood D.W Grittifh's message of tolerance: I'm not even going to bother with the sarcasm here. Who the f*ck looked at the script and thought two gold toothed, illiterate and I quote "Jive talking" robot brothers was a good idea... oh that's right we'd be suggesting someone read this script beforehand. Why would anyone have enough respect for the audience to make something worth the $12 during a f*cking recession! My mistake guys, I should have known better.
To end this review off cause quite frankly I want to get on with my life. I understand that I may be a bit of harsh on people who actually like this film. However remember a year ago and how excited we were that hollywood was finally getting it with "The Dark Knight"? A blockbuster that pushed into the realm of pop culture art. We can still have that and by justifying "Revenge of the Fallen" were saying its okay for studios to walk over us. All I ask is that we all put a effort into proving them wrong again.

You know what is even worse then "The Hills" is a film that for some strange reason believes that when it becomes as shallow, vain and self-righteous its deep and insightful art. This is the type of film experience "The Informers" is

I guess I should note that this is not as much as a review as this is a film that I'll honestly admit that you'll either love it or hate it. Sadly I'm in the absolutely hate it with a burning passion. While some will find it insightful and poetic, though sadly for a film that works to push buttons, "Antichrist" suffers from trying way too hard and being simply boring. While I wouldn't call myself a fan of director Lars von Trier, I always appreciated his attempts to take risks but here he throws everything you could possible imagine, where you start to figure out that this dude is no more guilty of reusing ideas then Michael f*cking Bay!
"Antichrist" also has Bay's understanding of feminist theories. As lovely and talented as Charlotte Gainsbourg is, she is not as much giving a performance as she is a tool for von Trier to get his hatred of women out there. When you consider the fact that Dafoe is perfectly okay and rational, take Gainsbourg off the pills for a couple of hours and all sorts of crazy stuff happens. (Read anything about the film and you'll know what I'm taking about.)
Now I'll admit that this movie has it strong points. The camera work by Anthony Don Mantle is stunning and as much as I dislike the film, I have to admit that its well made and there were one or two moments that the film is genuinely horrific art.
Simply there's just not enough of this, a beautiful but ugly and cold hearted film. These flaws could be forgiven had "Antichrist" been more then a shallow and sexist bit of dull self-indulgence but its not. Before I can in full on rant mode, its polarizing film so I can look past my own bias and admit its worth a rental for that reason. Though if you can see anything in the film that I missed, I'll gladly listen. Right now though I stand by my review 100%.

As a budding film critic its quite difficult to review a movie like "Law Abiding Citizen", on one hand its one of the funniest films of the year which in that case I'd give it a 4 star review but the problem is that I'm fairly sure that it was suppose to be a highly dramatic, intense action drama and a statement on the shambles on the American justice system. In that case you have your 1.5 stars right here. Which is a shame considering the talent that no one ever considered the logic behind any of this.
Take for example at the beginning from Gerard Butler's family is killed, I mean I get it he's angry that his family has been killed and wants justice. Problem is that both the script and Butler's performance is so one-sided that it takes everything to a one giant level of stupidity. The change from family man to blood thirsty mass murderer is so drastic and considering there is not a single moment of doubt or moral conflict that it left me with two questions.
1. Are we suppose to root for him?
2. If the mobs dudes didn't take the little girl out, would this guy have done it once, she hits the teen years?
Its this type of lazy writing and zany over the top "Saw-esque" killing scenes that make "Law Abiding Citizen" difficult to understand what its trying to do.
Sadly despite these flaws at least Butler is interesting and looks like he's at least having fun blowing sh*t up. Everyone else, particularly Jamie Foxx and Viola Davis just look as though they are totally going to switch to Philip Seymour Hoffman's agent once shooting is done. Hell I don't think I've ever seen extras look this embarrassed to be in a film.
Though credit should go to F. Gary Gary for making a well shot piece of junk and its a film I'd go see for in no other reason there is a lot to laugh at in "Law Abiding Citizen" Just don't expect anything like logic, a brain or a point.

Its important once in awhile to remind people that there is significant difference between maturity and just being really super moody. That is something that Yates should have asked before making "Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince".
Now while I'll be honest in admitting I've never been too big a fan of the boy who lived, after Alfonso Cuarón"s "Prisoner of Azkaban" (Easily the best potter flick) it showed that the series could be more than its kiddie excess... sadly this latest entry shifts towards the polar opposite. A mirky looking film that uses explosions and bad puberty jokes as though it was a British Michael Bay film.
I think the problem is that even though its suppose to be a more "mature" film the basic story structure is EXACTLY the same as its been for the last eight years. Yes I know fans already nitpick the differences between the novel but really there's no sense of suspense. Potter finds a old book with a deep dark secret, he follows it down a secret path, craziness with Lord Voldemort ensures and even with a surprise twist at the end (I know those who care already know it but no reason to spoil it for everyone else.) All that went through my mind is that after 5 years of this sh*t shouldn't Harry know better?
Now its not all bad, the effects get better with each film and the young cast also are getting much better with age, to the point where they may even have careers after this. Plus the older cast is still solid (With a bonus half star going to Alan Rickman going on badass.)
However its just simply not enough because once again its not that the film is terrible just after 8 freaking years non-potter heads need something new and exciting to actually you know... care.

I remember reading an article on what is considered to be a surefire oscar winner, "Amelia" had three of those things going for it. Bio-pic, main character dying (Um... spoiler alert.) and Hilary Swank. Problem is they could have made Amelia Earhart a mentally challenged lesbian and I still wouldn't see it picking up those bald golden men anytime soon. Why because quite simply its not a good movie.
Not that it didn't have anything to offer, stars a TWO time oscar winner, two highly underrated actors and was directed by Mira Nair. All of which earned their reputations by being risk takers and trying things that are out of their comfort zone. Just within the first 5 minutes, you can pinpoint where they said screw this and play it as close to the "Oscar winners for Dumbies" book as possible.
The biggest upset here being Swank, an actress I hold in high regard, when challenged can delivers something that puts her in the best of our generation (See "Boys Don't Cry" or Million Dollar Baby") but when not, she's about as interesting as watching paint dry. Whether the voice-overs or the big dramatic speeches its everything thats dull and predictable about oscar season. With really no one in the cast faring much better, someone needs to recommend a f*cking agent to these guys.
So if I'm ragging on this film so much, why 2 stars. Mostly because for the moments you can stay awake for "Amelia" is quite visual treat. Nair has some breath-taking aerial shots of the world as Amelia travels and as bombastic and over the top the score may be its quite amazing to listen to and probably up there with "Up" for best score of the year. If anything is done right, the look understands Amelia Earhart perfectly. (Seriously if you are to ever see this film, a theatre is the only way too go, once again though with its 2 stars I'm not saying to go see it.)
While "Amelia" is not quite the cinematic version of the plane wreck of the lead character. (Once again if you didn't see this coming, pick up a bloody history book.) Its still a film of wasted talent and a film that will learn the hard way, after a year where a small indie about the slums of Dubai won BP and a freakin Batman film was almost nominated, (Gotta give credit where its due.) safety first just does not cut it with audiences or voters,

So first movie of 2009 for me is Notorious, the story of Christopher Wallace aka Notorious B.I.G and depending on how you look at the movie it is either a so-so film elevated by an amazing debut performance by Jamal Woolard or an amazing debut performance that gets dragged down by a so-so film, your call. I won't deny that Notorious has massive pace problems, lazy scripting and directing and a story that lacks the vision of the man it is about that results in a by the number bio picture but some of it is regained in the performances.
The film goes all the way back to Biggie's early life with the role being played by his own son and his mother played by Angela Bassett both of whom do the best they can with the material. There is also excellent work from Anthony Mackie who does an excellent job as Tupac, proving sometimes its best to go against the script to have a real character (Don't forget Diddy produced the film.) but with moments of honestly and humanity like that, the audience has to deal with painful self indulgence such as Diddy making sure he is portrayed as a God even when B.I.G and Tupac are portrayed as real characters.
So there is a balance of good and bad but overall what makes this worth a rental is Jamal Woolard who if he was in any other film his performance would be compared as a black Daniel Day Lewis. The way that he inhabits every movement and even breath of the character is nothing short of amazing top notch acting.
Sadly this is more then the film deserves, while its heart is in the right place its hard to separate Notorious with other films of this genre.

You know what the biggest issue with Woody Allen comedies in the last 10 years? Its the male lead, they are written to be so distinctly Woody that there is just something strange and uncomfortable about watching anyone else take that role.
While Larry David seems to be a perfect fit for a Woody Allen comedy, you still feel as though Woody really misses the 70s in "Whatever Works", his first New York comedy in 5 years. What should have been a match made in comedic neurotic, Jewish stereotype heaven turns into a so-so comedy that should have been a lot better.
For the record I love "Curb Your Enthusiasm" and Larry David in it but simply put part of the appeal of Curb is that it never asks you to think of Larry David as anything more then a socially inept ass, here David is a socially inept ass that were suppose to like... I'm sure he's a nice guy in real life but likable Larry David is like catching your parents making out, you just get really uncomfortable watching it all go down.
Though to be fair even if David was playing to his strength, this script was on the back burner for 30 years! While it has its moments of charm and humor, you can see why. I know it may be unfair to compare this with "Annie Hall" or "Manhattan" but its hard not to expect more after those masterpieces.
That's not to say that the film does not also include the strengths of Woody Allen, as usual Allen is amazing with his female cast, Evan Rachel Wood brings an amazing ray of sunshine to a fairly cynical attitude and even if he is not in top form, Allen is still a sharper satirist then the majority of writers out there. That there are certainly some moments in "Whatever Works" that shows what our parents saw in Woody Allen to begin with.
If the film was better constructed and more selective in it editing and style, we could have had a masterpiece but sadly by just putting whatever into the film and only about 50% work. (Man, I'm witty)