Top Ten and Analysis of 2009

[Sxottlan]

Embarrassingly late as usual, although I was still seeing films from 2009 up until two weeks ago.

I have noticed that the days of whole threads devoted to one person’s personal top ten appear to be fading. Not to toot my own horn, but as far as I can recall, I was the first to post a big top ten article in a thread over at Rotten Tomatoes way back in 2000. But I grow weary of long lengthy posts on a film anymore. I seem to be internalizing my own thoughts lately instead of publishing them anymore, posting more quick drive by thoughts but usually keeping my own council. So perhaps it’s time I call it quits with these massive recap threads. My opinion is no larger than anyone else and frankly, I don't get the number of responses to make this really worth it.

But let’s has one more swing shall we?

2009 was a mildly disappointing year for film. Much of this is based on a number of anticipated films getting pushed back either to 2010 or else just didn’t reach my area yet. Another reason is the films I was looking forward to either didn’t live up to expectations or else were good, but not great. I probably built the year up a little too much beforehand as I have believed the odd numbered years of the decade were better than the even numbered ones. It’s silly I know, but that’s how the decade went, but not for 2009.

At the same time, there weren’t that many films that I outright hated. There were a couple I tried to whip myself up into a frenzy of hatred or indignation over. But that didn’t really work either. I think I’m subconsciously becoming more selective about what I see. I definitely saw fewer films in 2009 than years past. I think I just can’t free up as much time as I used to have. It’s the natural order of things as one gets older. I also have this weird quirk where if I won’t even bother with a film if it’s from the year before and I’m trying to get through all the new content having already written my top ten article before that.

To shamelessly steal from MSNBC, some noteworthy moments in time from 2009:

1. A husband finally lets his wife go long after she’s gone in Up.
2. An effort to pay a drug dealer is suddenly moot in A Serious Man.
3. A drug-addled cop brandishing a gun tells two old ladies why they’re the problem with society in Bad Lieutenant.
4. Harry Potter and Ron Weasley struggle over the last new copy of a textbook in The Half-Blood Prince.
5. Two mothers, one human and one supernatural, meet because their children are in love in Ponyo.
6. A breeze blows up the dress of a woman laying in bed before an open window in Bright Star.
7. A fox and a wolf share a moment of solidarity in The Fantastic Mr. Fox.
8. The titular character calculates what it’ll take to disable an opponent in Sherlock Holmes.
9. A looter steals a television from an electronics store and a walking television goes in and steals the store clerk in Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs.
10. Just five minutes into the film and I'm already emotional at the destruction of the U.S.S. Kelvin and the birth of James T. Kirk in Star Trek.

[Sxottlan]

The Worst Films of 2009: Whether distasteful, obnoxious, condescending or just plain stupid, the worst films of the year all had a little of each. Again though, there weren’t that many that I outright hated.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v79/Sxottlan/PreciousCrap.jpg

No comment.

1. Precious: *1/2 Bad things happen to people. However, I never once bought the premise of this film, in which everything bad that can possibly happen does indeed happen to one person. And just what the fuck was I supposed to take away from the cross-cutting between a girl getting raped by her father and pig’s feet cooking in a pot? I was laughing at the god awful stupidity of it, not to mention a close up of bed springs bending (because she’s fat, get it?!). And was I supposed to stare bewildered at the credits purposefully misspelled to convey ignorance? Cause I did. Usually I can think of wittier things to say than this, but I just can’t. I’d rather post a link (http://blogs.suntimes.com/scanners/2009/12/precious_moments.html) to a funny spoof of the film’s ridiculous and desperate attempt to illicit pity no matter the cost. I do have to chuckle however at Precious falling down the stairs with the baby and then dodging a falling television like she’s an action hero.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v79/Sxottlan/NinjaAssassin.jpg

“Make ‘em laugh! Make ‘em laugh!”

2. Ninja Assassin: *1/2 Supernatural ninjas who can step out of any little shadow might seem like a cool idea, but it’s squandered in action scenes cut to ribbons. Probably just as well because the production values are so weak. If the camera stayed still for more than a few seconds, you’d probably realize most of the film was shot in an apartment and an empty warehouse somewhere in Berlin. From its whiplash inducing introduction of the main characters and the laugh inducing conspiracy (the ninjas are everywhere!), the film is just bad. And far too late do the heroes realize that you can kill a ninja by, you know, shooting them with guns. But it’s good to see Sho Kashugi in something again.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v79/Sxottlan/Pelham.jpg

The latest marketing gimmick to see a Tony Scott film, pulling a gun on people, backfires horribly.

3. The Taking of Pelham 123: ** Seriously, up yours movie. I think for the first time ever, I found a character so absolutely loathsome that he just completely sank the entire film for me. That would be Ryder as played by John Travolta, a man taking hostages on a subway train. He swears like a gangbanger and coming from a middle age bald guy, it doesn’t play. Come to find out, he wants revenge for the city reneging on a plea deal for his embezzlement plea. What really just makes me disgusted with the character? Come to find out, he stole more than was discovered. And he’s mad at them? The film creates a character so spiteful and hateful, you cheer on the improbable finale where a desk jockey chases him down and shoots him in the face. Did I spoil the film for you? I did? Good. Maybe now you won’t see it.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v79/Sxottlan/Surrogates.jpg

“Damn, I can’t remember. Do I have enough blonde male at home?”

4. Surrogates: ** Probably one of the most disappointing films in quite awhile. A fascinating premise is squandered on cheap production values and a depressing narrative trajectory that veers towards 80’s action clichés. The idea of operating robots from home to avoid human contact is a fantastic premise for a very timely sci-fi film. However, the film doesn’t go far enough with the premise. As a result, we’re ironically left with an empty shell of what could have been. I’ve mentioned this before, but it’s absolutely hilarious how the DVD campaign has completely failed to mention the avatar plot, which was the big gimmick for the film to begin with.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v79/Sxottlan/Gamer.jpg

Kind of a haphazard firing line.

5. Gamer: ** What bottom ten list would be complete without an entry from the law firm of Taylor & Neveldine, your injury attorneys? The second film on my bottom ten to deal with control of avatars, the only difference here is that the characters being controlled are real people, not androids. It really does invite even more interesting speculation, particularly the people who voluntarily offer themselves up to be controlled in a life-sized version of The Sims. Yet again, we decide to forgo that interesting psychological examination in favor of blowing away ravers in big giant balls. The film also seemed to particularly enjoy murdering women or else making them simpering losers who want to be controlled. The only inspired moment, the villain holds an impromptu dance number with big burly and bloody prisoners.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v79/Sxottlan/Push.jpg

Behold the birth of Dakota Fanning.

6. Push: ** An obvious attempt at creating a franchise, this film was pretty heavy on set up and twisting plots and not very heavy on the action. There’s the cliché of the ghost of the powerful father shadowing the son, which I’m just so absolutely sick of. I liked the setting, but the film’s major problem is that for all the set up and the feeling that it should be interesting, it just isn’t. There was also the hysterical image of people walking around with guns floating in front of them that was just too silly. I get the feeling the filmmakers thought it’d be cool.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v79/Sxottlan/FastFurious.jpg

“What the hell Kurt Russell?”

7. Fast & Furious: ** The film is interesting in that it feels more like a real sequel to the 2001 surprise hit than the previous two films, both more or less spin-offs from the major characters. Unfortunately, all the special effects and continent hopping kind of loses the feeling of the first with its b-film roots. I also had to laugh out loud when we see the gang celebrating their latest heist and they’re ALL wearing white like they’re fucking saints or something. And throughout all these films, just what is it about the Vin Diesel character that makes everyone want to do anything for him? I’ve never gotten it. I hope they’re done with these films, because I can’t imagine what they’ll call it. F&F?

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v79/Sxottlan/PublicEnemies.jpg

Little known historical fact: John Dillinger only liked one-legged women.

8. Public Enemies: ** Again, a film that just didn’t hold my interest. A long drawn out gangster film that just doesn’t offer compelling characters. Both Depp and Bale are way too subdued here. I also didn’t care for the girlfriend who falls for the obvious and possessive criminal. The choice of shooting a period piece with a digital camera is an intriguing experiment, but one that only led to more of a disconnect for me. The shootout at the lodge is great, but there’s little else to offer. The attempts to create different locations fall flat. For example, there’s no way in hell that hotel was in Tucson. Literally there was one very fake looking cactus planted outside and that was it.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v79/Sxottlan/Blood.jpg

Must have been a particularly rough group on the train today.

9. Blood: The Last Vampire: ** A film I saw on DVD, I guess I shouldn’t be surprised by this as I thought the anime series was pretty terrible. The visual effects are terrible and the sword play, a pretty big part of the character of Saya, really isn’t that impressive. Saya also acts too much like a robot instead of a person fighting with her animalistic side. I guess the film is set in the 70’s, but you don’t really notice that until you hear the soundtrack. I also seem to recall a completely unnecessary subplot with a member of the good guys turning on everyone else. The only decent scene is the ending fight with Diva, who is Saya’s sister or mother or something.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v79/Sxottlan/Road2.jpg

Viggo prepares for this year’s Black Friday at Wal-Mart.

10. The Road: ** Yeah I know. I just couldn’t get into this. I appreciated the obtuseness of the world’s background, even if it felt a bit contradictory (Was it an asteroid strike? Environmental disaster?). I know that wasn’t the point of the film, but the movie just doesn’t hold my interest. Part of it is the shaky production values with some visual effects shots looking like they were shoehorned into the film to give it some kind of scale. I never read the book, so I can’t be sure if it too had what felt like such an undeserved happy ending. I also just don’t much care for the theme that a whole family is the be-all answer.

[Sxottlan]

Some miscellaneous categories:

Most Under-Rated Film of 2009: 2012. A unique disaster film in that it’s more about trying to save what you can and just forget the rest. At the end, the world is pretty much completely destroyed. Sure, the film kind of glazes over the deaths of billions of people and you’d think the flood waters would be choked full with our dead, but for the most part the film stays focused on a small group of people, even if spread out over the world. Something so massive as the world’s ending is not something that can be easily captured so quickly. The film’s theme of the good of the many outweigh the good of the few I have always found appealing (and made manifest in the film’s climax as two groups struggle to survive over each other) and I enjoyed the massive sociological upheaval the world’s destruction brought. There’s also a bit of satire in how humanity’s last arks are still designed for spaciousness and not practicality and the chaos of the destruction reveals incompetence in the government (“This isn’t a conspiracy,� says the chief of staff when someone isn’t saved).

Most Over-Rated Film of 2009: Precious, as stated above.

Biggest Surprise Film of 2009: Sherlock Holmes, er, as stated below. Why repeat myself?

Biggest Disappointment of 2009: Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince. Is it possible to label this the biggest disappointment of the year and still generally like it? There’s always one film a year that I try to convince myself I liked when I know I really didn’t. I can’t say that really happened this year, but the ending of this film is such a let-down from expectations and anything remotely resembling blockbuster “logic.� I suppose one could make the argument that the preceding scene in the cave was the film’s real climax, but I have never felt that way. The book had a battle between Death Eaters and the Order of the Phoenix throughout Hogwarts after the death of Dumbledore. You’d think that would be an automatic given for the film. Nope. Instead, the Death Eaters pretty much walk out of the castle undisturbed. A plot is just sloppy to me when the bad guys win over sheer incompetence on the part of the good guys. Then again, the entire film, like the sixth book, is almost completely unnecessary and two steps back in character development, totally stopping the momentum from book five. At least it was the best looking movie of the year. A shame the cinematographer won’t be back for the final installment.

[Sxottlan]

On to the top ten. Please keep in mind the films I did not see either because I could not locate a copy or else I just couldn’t muster the interest despite the wide praise: Sugar, Thirst, Summer Hours and The Limits of Control.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v79/Sxottlan/Avatar.jpg

Runner-Up: Avatar: Directed by James Cameron ***1/2

“You think you’re one of them? I’m going to wake you up.”

Quite a monumental task to even comes close to the scale of his previous film and yet James Cameron is able to match the size of Titanic and perhaps even then some with Avatar. A film full of rage, its scope and beauty more often than not paves over some of the contrivances. We appear to sympathize with the Navi partly because Pandora is so beautiful and the planet’s biology has such a nearly direct technological translation that we’re baffled the company’s leaders don’t see it. Nor do they once listen to their scientific branch, making one wonder why they even bothered with the Avatar program to begin with. It would have been interesting if Pandora had been vibrant, but ugly and the Navi monstrous beings. Instead, they’re quite silly looking to me. No matter. Size and big open spaces, technical and pastoral, set the stage in the early goings of the film and easily establish a very real feeling world. The action scenes pulled me in and the film’s confidence eventually won me over. Also interesting is the film’s unhurried exploration of an admittedly stunning world. It’s a credit that, even with the film’s stacking of the deck in the Navi’s favor, it’s still an incredible exercise in world-building and feels almost plausible.

[Sxottlan]

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v79/Sxottlan/Coraline1.jpg

10. Coraline: Directed by Henry Selick ***1/2

“Don't leave me! I'll die without you!�

Such an incredible world created here! Revolving mostly around a hulking apartment house in the fog-shrouded country of the American northwest, Selick’s latest creates an incredible atmosphere even before the titular character finds a doorway to another universe layered on top of hers. Angered that she’s not getting enough attention, Coraline discovers a loving Other Mother and the film is perceptive about how there can be such a thing as too much love, delving into a soul-sucking obsession, a theme here and reflected in my number one, another film about obsession surrounding a house. The look of the film is singular, perhaps matched only by the video game Psychonauts, both taking the mental psyche of a person and painting a world reflecting her adolescent mood. It’s truly disturbing when that perfect world is taken and perverted into something alien and frightening, ultimately leeching away all color to a blinding nothingness, leaving just Coraline and the Other Mother. It recalls animation not seen since the 1950’s. It also is a shock to the system, going from the analog world of stop motion animation that feels so real you could step inside and explore the boundaries to the digital world of the true Other Mother with no horizon and yet conversely trapped inside her web.

[Sxottlan]

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v79/Sxottlan/SherlockHolmes.jpg

9. Sherlock Holmes: Directed by Guy Ritchie ***1/2

“It's a matter of professional integrity! No girl wants to marry a doctor who can't tell if a man's dead or not!�

I’m no fan of Guy Ritchie and I was a little suspicious of Robert Downey Jr. taking on another potential franchise while he was already Iron Man. However, I guess my reduced expectations helped me love this all the more. The movie keeps up a great amount of kinetic energy even as the film doesn’t have action set pieces that can rival anything like in Avatar or something of that ilk. The film does however have a pretty good sense of place and time and I have always been a fan of the Victorian era (strange that I’ve never actually read any Doyle). There is also an incredible sense of anticipation in this movie for a showdown that would obviously never even happen in the film, that of between Holmes and the enigmatic Professor Moriarty. The appreciation of not only the criminal underworld, but the day-to-day workings of Victorian London, by Guy Ritchie help make this feel like a loving tribute to this character with the promise of more to come.

[Sxottlan]

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v79/Sxottlan/District9.jpg

8. District 9: Directed by Neill Blomkamp ***1/2

“There’s a lot of secrets in District 9.�

Another of the major surprises of the year was this import. It was truly astonishing to see the success this film enjoyed. What strikes me about this film is the sheer arrogance of humanity. There’s the line that we have seen the monster and it is ourselves and that’s never truer than here, where an ineffectual civic service worker cheerfully conducting a forced relocation of thousands of space aliens is turned into one of them. To see how the “Prawns� are treated is truly horrifying and there’s a hint at the end that there could be a reckoning. And why not, humans from governments on down to petty local gang chiefs are vying for a piece of what the aliens brought, mostly their weaponry. I found my reaction to the film interesting in that this sort of selfish and violent behavior between humans is so commonplace, but the moment we actually start to think we can impose ourselves on intelligent beings from another world, suddenly I felt embarrassment and shame. Hollywood films should also feel some shame at their price tags when looking at this film. Made for about $30 Million, this film looks like it cost three times as much. The battle suit in the finale was truly awesome and looked very realistic.

[Sxottlan]

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v79/Sxottlan/ASeriousMan.jpg

7. A Serious Man: Directed by the Coen Brothers ***1/2

“Accept the mystery.�

It used to be that if I never really found anything particularly wrong with a movie, I’d give it a perfect rating. That was my approach with the Coens’ latest film, a movie that I admittedly had hoped would have been a lot funnier than it ultimately was. So the rating went down a tad bit on reflection, but that’s not to say that Stan Gopnik’s frequent consternation and astonishment at a litany of problems in his life isn’t hysterically funny. I got the feeling that my laughter was more a byproduct, perhaps a defense mechanism against the discomforting situations Stan found himself in. His brother’s unexplained sodomy charge for example. He never seems so free of his problems until he’s on the roof of his modest single level home; surveying everyone else’s modest little homes and watching his neighbor sunbathe. I understand the Coens came from a similar Minnesota neighborhood, so I appreciated what felt like a personal peak into the history of filmmakers who have made their mark with movies shrouded in bitter humor or dispassionate violence. Then again, maybe that’s just what they want us to think. Either way, I’m just glad the Coens are continuing a healthy rebounding streak of success after I was afraid they had given up the ghost in the early Aughties. Here, they deliver probably their most daring finale: just as you think you’ll get the film’s grand statement with an apocalyptic ending, A Serious Man is content to simply remind us that all of those little problems are just that: little. We don’t need to know what the tornado destroys, just that it simply exists.

[Sxottlan]

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v79/Sxottlan/NewEnterprise.jpg

6. Star Trek: Directed by J.J. Abrams ***1/2

“James T. Kirk was a great man. But that was another life.�

This revitalization of a stalling franchise is off and running into its first action scene within the first two minutes. It’s this breathless pacing that defined the breezy speed of this reboot. I was pleasantly surprised by the cast of mostly unknowns, one of the things I was most worried about before seeing the film. However, that also helped them more become the characters, a benefit when it came to filling the shoes of the legendary cast. There are regular references to how this is a new universe spun off the cataclysmic events brought by Nero and the realization by the characters that the universe is splitting off into an alternate reality is tinged with some sadness. Sadness that 40 years of history are going their own way and we’re now going another. In some ways it is very liberating. It doesn’t get too depressing as the action moves at a brisk clip with a sequence high in Vulcan’s orbit and atmosphere is very thrilling. And kudos to director J.J. Abrams for bringing more of a lived-in feel to what has sometimes been a sterile feeling universe. Bring on the sequel!

[Sxottlan]

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v79/Sxottlan/RedCliff.jpg

5. Red Cliff: Directed by John Woo **** (full version)

"Truth and illusion are often disguised as each other..."

The first thing that must be noted is the patience. I haven’t seen the cut down two and a half hour version, but I doubt it had the full film’s leisurely detours into quiet character moments. John Woo’s dream project and gargantuan epic, the love is on the screen with the director’s trademark big emotion and complex relationships between men. Throw in a classic Woo Mexican stand off and just one dove (at least it appears in one of the best shots of the year) and you have a great return to form for the director. His last American feature was just so depressing and really didn’t fit his sensibilities at all. There are some elements of wuxia and while the film doesn’t skimp out on fantastical set pieces, it’s a fairly straightforward drama where I don’t think the fights are even remotely half the running time. For example, General Zhou Yu paused formation drills as he and his soldiers listen to a kid play the flute and then gives him pointers. Another time, we get a peak into how astonishingly pitiful corrupt minister Cao Cao is. Best of all, one scene both clever and hysterical shows the good guys out “collecting” arrows. When we get to the titular battle, supposedly one of the biggest battles in all of human history, the film does not disappoint. Some of the computer imagery is suspect, but the physical scale is ridiculous. Imagine Helm’s Deep shot to actual scale and I think that would just be the assault on Cao Cao’s front gate. Welcome back John!

[Sxottlan]

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v79/Sxottlan/WhiteRibbon2.jpg

4. The White Ribbon: Directed by Michael Haneke ****

“White, as you know, is the color of innocence.�

I can’t resist a film combining a dash of mystery along with a slice of life seemingly frozen in time. Like the subject of the film’s opening shot, we’re dropped into this world of a farming village in pre-World War One Germany. We quickly discover that not all is right in this town, a village that still seemingly adheres to feudalism while the rest of the world lurches towards mustard gas and mechanical monstrosities on the battle field in the coming days. Haneke’s epic quietly and beautifully creates a living, breathing community from the bottom up where little can stay quiet for long. And yet there are escalating and unexplained instances of violence that subtly and quickly destabilize the village. Was there really a wire that brought down the doctor? The adults in the village are in denial of the horrors they visit upon their children coming back to them. Haneke has apparently said he wanted to explore the roots of Nazism. However while I can see the conditions here made some people susceptible to the Nazis propaganda of Germany’s poverty versus foreigners, it seemed these children were rebelling against the strict order as opposed to embracing it.

[Sxottlan]

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v79/Sxottlan/IB3.jpg

3. Inglourious Basterds: Directed by Quentin Tarantino ****

“Hell, watching Donnie beat Nazis to death is about as close as we get to going to the movies.�

While relatively light on actual action compared to his last two films, Quentin Tarantino’s long gestating World War Two film is still infused with incredible tension. There’s a twenty minute scene in a basement bar that is 99% talking and 1% bloodshed and it’s about the tensest scene I’ve seen in a long time. Employing much of the same narrative structure as his Pulp Fiction, Tarantino breaks up the film into chapters that jump around, giving the film the feeling of an anthology where the characters only briefly interact. In fact, the titular characters and the film’s actual main character, Shoshanna, never even meet. I was accidentally spoiled in advance about the film’s revision of history, but it was still quite a shock to see. At the same time, why not? In my opinion, World War 2 has already become this near mythic event that no longer feels like history but a collection of stories. Why not have one where the war ends differently? The performances are uniformly excellent, with Christophe Waltz coming out of nowhere to blow everyone away. For a film with a lot of trademark Tarantino dialogue, a lot is conveyed through looks and his are always disturbing. Strangely, the film is also probably Tarantino’s funniest film.

[Sxottlan]

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v79/Sxottlan/watchmen5.jpg

2. Watchmen: Directed by Zack Snyder ****

“The smartest man in the world poses no more a threat to me than the world’s smartest termite.�

Full disclosure up front: I never read the book and probably never will. Comics and graphic novels remain a medium that I just have little to no interest in. I’ve bought a few Star Trek comics, but they remain mostly untouched in the drawer. Reading this was material thought unfilmable, I was pretty surprised to find how much I loved this film and how much it made sense. It’s unfortunate the initial positive response to the film has apparently drowned in subsequent sustained disdain because this is really a first rate epic action film that parcels out the thrills. Following after 300, Snyder was fortunate to have considerable leeway and the film is uncompromising and restrained. It doesn’t have the humor or lightheartedness that most executives seem to think comic book movies need to have. It takes itself very seriously and I found that refreshing. And why not? The film features the biggest feat of social engineering in human history and ends with the heroes conspiring to keep it quiet. In some ways, the film was rendered irrelevant with The Incredibles covering much of the same plot years ago, but I loved the more serious approach to the satire. And being a fan of the 1980’s, I loved the alternate universe in that setting, rendered in smart detail, like the old Apple computer interface used at a key plot reveal.

[Sxottlan]

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v79/Sxottlan/UP1.jpg

1. Up: Directed by Peter Doctor ****

“Is there nothing he can’t do?�

Despite their long list of masterpieces, this is the first Pixar film to top my personal top ten list. The film is probably their biggest long shot, even over Wall-E. It’s as though Werner Herzog were given the keys to a Pixar film and this is a result, a tale of obsession that threatens to crush a lonely widower, painted in images that you’ve never seen before. I’ve been thinking lately of how the last many years have gone by in a rush and now I’m 32 and watching this movie, you become aware of how easily it is to fall into routines. You hunker down, do your job and before you know it there goes ten years. The passage of time in the marriage of Carl and Ellie Fredrickson is one of the most beautiful and heartbreaking montages in film history. The sorrow it generates drives Carl to fanatical heights, uprooting his home and flying to Venezuela, all the time calling his house by his wife’s name. It’s ultimately an albatross around his neck as he drags it to Paradise Falls, a rambunctious kid in tow along with two animals, one trying to take the other prisoner. When Carl meets his childhood idol in exile, Charles Muntz, he’s a terrifying reflection of himself, especially at the climax. In one of Pixar’s most disturbing moments, Muntz furiously pounds on the door to the house with a gun, a child cowering in fear inside. Up is a superior vision, a superior story and superior adventure.

[Sxottlan]

Best Scenes of 2009:
1. Marriage montage from Up.
2. Opening credit sequence from Watchmen.
3. Fire attack from Red Cliff.
4. Vulcan sequence from Star Trek.
5. Warehouse explosion from Sherlock Holmes.

Best Shots of 2009: Lots of openers and closers this year.
1. Final shot of A Serious Man.
2. Opening shot of Star Trek.
3. An animal on fire runs through the jungle in Avatar.
4. A girl laying on her bed before an open window in Bright Star.
5. Tracking shot through the aftermath of a plane crash in Knowing.

Total films seen: 66

[baby doll]

I like Up (it's very cute, and the opening montage could stand alone as an NFB short), but I'd refrain from calling it a masterpiece--or for that matter, any Pixar film. (There's some I missed, but I can't imagine that their "long list of masterpieces" consists entirely of those I've passed on. For the record, I've seen Toy Story, Monster's Inc., Finding Nemo, Wall-E, and Up, and I liked them all okay.) Maybe this is an auteurist bias of mine against a house style, but I find their films, even at their most ambitious like Wall-E, disconcertingly forgettable. I enjoy them, but once I leave the theatre, it's as if I never saw them. (Miyazaki on the other hand...)

As for the Werner Herzog comparison, I shouldn't have to point out that Pixar's streamlined approach to storytelling and agile pacing (are any of their films longer than eighty minutes?) are the exact opposite of Herzog's stoned reveries. And Herzog himself only has contempt for the rigid three-act structure that all Pixar films are shining examples of; watching Up in particular, I felt as though I were getting a virtual crash course in Joseph Campell's theories with a dash of Spielberg's father obsession thrown in for good measure.

I haven't seen The Watchmen, and never will. As time goes by, I only become more resolute in my conviction that the French are the only people who know how to make a decent super-hero movie--specifically, Louis Feuillade's Judex, and Georges Franju's remake of the same film. Case in point: Michel Gondry is directing The Green Lantern, so I'll have to see that.

As I've said elsewhere on this forum, although I've only seen Star Trek dubbed into French, I'm pretty sure it's stupid in any language. Incidentally, without wanting to put words in your mouth, you seem to be implying that opening the film with an action sequence means face-paced storytelling. I think it means that the filmmakers have a very low estimation of their viewers that the first three sequences in the movie show: Kirk's father's spaceship exploding (crudely juxtaposd with his mother giving birth); Kirk as a boy stealing a car so we know that growing up without a father has made him a troubled boy (and a total badass, blasting Beastie Boys as he roars down a strip of two-lane blacktop at top speed); and then Kirk as a young adult getting into a fight in a bar. By this logic, a porno movie has a fast-pace if every scene ends with the actors having intercourse.

That said, this film is fast-paced because it makes every point with the finesse of a trainwreck. You don't even need the dialouge, because once you figure out that the bland white boy is the hero and the guy with the face tattoo is the villain, everything else falls into place. The filmmakers grant themselves two scenes to show that Kirk is a troubled boy in need of a father-figure, so they go big by having him steal a car. It's a movie without any small moments. As for having a "lived-in" feel: Are you kidding? This is another one of those science fiction movies where the bad guy has a giant pit in the middle of his ship so people can fall into it when they become expendable to the plot. In short, it's the worst movie of the year.

Regarding A Serious Man, how is the brother's sodomy charge "unexplained"? It's not a mystery; he just likes to take it up the butt.

District 9 is stupid and too violent. I don't object to violence in movies (I quite liked Antichrist), but I'm not much into the mindless variety. The whole second half of this movie basically consists of things going boom, splatter, kapow.

Sherlock Holmes was mildly diverting, but everything about it is so formulaic. Also, why are you opposed to Robert Downey, Jr. finding employment in other movies at the same time that he's doing the Iron Man films? I could understand arguing that this sort of thing is beneathe his talent (not to mention Jude Law's), but the idea that he should only stick to one franchise at a time seems baffling to me.

As for Avatar, am I the only one not impressed with the design of the planet? It's basically a CGI rainforest, and although the blue cat people look really cool, the other creatures are just generic SF monsters. Furthermore, it feels like there are scenes missing--namely, even one sequence on earth so we could contrast it with Pandora. Solaris it ain't.

Ratings:

1. Up (Filmmaking by committe, really) / ***
3. Inglourious Basterds (Quentin Tarantino) / ***1/2
4. The White Ribbon (Michael Haneke) / ****
5. Star Trek (Committee) / *
7. A Serious Man (Ethan and Joel Coen) / **** (my favorite film of the year)
8. District 9 (Committee) / **
9. Sherlock Holmes (Committee) / **
11. Avatar (Yeah, this too; I know, I know, Cameron's got a "vision" and this was his twelve-year-in-the-making dream, but so what? It still feels like the product of an impersonal industrial process) / ***

Some recommendations for non-multiplex movies, off the top of my head: Adoration, Antichrist, Entre les murs, La Frontière de l'aube, Hunger (although this did get a multiplex release, surprisingly), Liverpool, Tony Manero, 35 rhums, Tulpan, You, the Living.

[Boner M]

I enjoy them, but once I leave the theatre, it's as if I never saw them. (Miyazaki on the other hand...)
I'm kinda the opposite. With the exceptions of Spirited Away, Laputa and Totoro, every Miyazaki film I've seen has been delightful and forgettable at once. Ponyo especially... struggling to remember it makes 2009 seem so far away.

[baby doll]

I'm kinda the opposite. With the exceptions of Spirited Away, Laputa and Totoro, every Miyazaki film I've seen has been delightful and forgettable at once. Ponyo especially... struggling to remember it makes 2009 seem so far away.It's interesting how subjective these things are. It's a topic I'll have to think about: What is it that makes a film memorable? In the case of Antichrist, there's at least one image that's pretty hard to shake off. Snip, snip.

[baby doll]

As an afterthought, the more I think about the Up-Werner Herzog comparison, the less sense it makes. I mean, Herzog is all about shooting in real locations, often with real people (Bruno S., for instance), and there's a good Manny Farber line that he's never composed a shot that wasn't off-kilter (Herzog himself says that he never thinks about composition, he just concentrates on the subject of the shot), where as Pixar's films are completely synthetic and every inch of the movie is planned within an inch of its life. (In his commentary for Aguirre, the Wrath of God, Herzog calls storyboards a myth of Hollywood.)

[Pop Trash]

It's interesting how subjective these things are. It's a topic I'll have to think about: What is it that makes a film memorable? In the case of Antichrist, there's at least one image that's pretty hard to shake off. Snip, snip.

Yeah, I'm not sure if being "memorable" always means something is good. I mean Cannibal Holocaust and I Spit On Your Grave have numerous "memorable" moments (akin to the aforementioned Antichrist) but I still don't think they are good movies exactly.

[Sxottlan]

As an afterthought, the more I think about the Up-Werner Herzog comparison, the less sense it makes.

I'm not saying what he would or would not want to direct, which is completely besides the point, but as I watched the film, I was reminded of his movies.

Admittedly, my Herzog is limited, but as far as eccentric characters driven by obsession and films with images that I myself have never seen, I think it makes perfect sense.

[Rowland]

Ponyo especially... struggling to remember it makes 2009 seem so far away.Yeah, Ponyo was a very charming work, as beautifully realized as one would anticipate any Miyazaki joint to be, with a number of poetic grace notes and the off-kilter dream-logic that drives its narrative, but yeah I can't say it resonated with me a great deal in the long-term. It's one of those weak three-stars movies.

[baby doll]

Yeah, I'm not sure if being "memorable" always means something is good. I mean Cannibal Holocaust and I Spit On Your Grave have numerous "memorable" moments (akin to the aforementioned Antichrist) but I still don't think they are good movies exactly.Obviously there are films that are memorably bad (Winter Light comes to mind), although I don't think Antichrist falls into that category. If nothing else, it's not boring. With Trier in general though, and his best work in particular (my own favorites being Breaking the Waves, Dogville, and Manderlay), one of the things I like about him is that he isn't a timid filmmaker. Going back to the Pixar guys, it's like they want everyone to like them, whereas Trier isn't afraid of alienating his audience. An Ã* propos line from Wayne's World: "I mean Led Zeppelin didn't write tunes everybody liked. They left that to the Bee Gees."

[Grouchy]

I wish I was a platypus so I wouldn't even be in the same species as the guy who wrote that long-ass baby doll post.

[Watashi]

Out of all movies in the history of cinema, if someone asked me what was "memorably bad", Winter Light would be the last film I would ever choose.

You really need to see some real shit cinema.

[Raiders]

I wish I was a platypus so I wouldn't even be in the same species as the guy who wrote that long-ass baby doll post.

Understandable. I sometimes wish you were a platypus too.

[Milky Joe]

baby doll is quietly becoming one of my favorite posters here. Way to go!

[monolith94]

Obviously there are films that are memorably bad (Winter Light comes to mind), although I don't think Antichrist falls into that category. If nothing else, it's not boring. With Trier in general though, and his best work in particular (my own favorites being Breaking the Waves, Dogville, and Manderlay), one of the things I like about him is that he isn't a timid filmmaker. Going back to the Pixar guys, it's like they want everyone to like them, whereas Trier isn't afraid of alienating his audience. An Ã* propos line from Wayne's World: "I mean Led Zeppelin didn't write tunes everybody liked. They left that to the Bee Gees."

I'm pretty sure that more people like Zepp than the BeeGees...