Star Trek (2009)

For my money, Star Trek was the best film of 2009. I wasn't a huge fan of The Hurt Locker and Avatar had some serious acting issues. Of the actual nominees, District 9 would have been my choice, but Star Trek was sorely overlooked.

Just so we're clear, I am not a Trekkie. I think I've seen the original Star Trek once and Star Trek Next Generation maybe five times. I could not have named a character beyond Spock and Kirk. Yet, I love love loved this movie. I have a special place in my heart for movies that have to be movies. Stuff that should be seen on a big screen, the stuff that people are talking about when they use the phrase movie magic. They remind me of why we all love movies to begin with. It's what separates movies from plays and television. Avatar had movie magic in spades but Sam Worthington - oof! Star Trek balanced it all beautifully. Engaging story, good acting, fun characters, and the sparkle of cinema.

I truly loved Zachary Quinto and Chris Pine in this movie. They were fun and funny and loveable with a few tinges of angst (I always love my angst). The supporting cast was also fantastic. Each character got a moment to shine. How adorable was Anton Yelchin as Pavel Chekov? And my Lord of the Rings love dictates that I always give major props to Karl Urban (who I met once! I had to resist the urge to bend down on one knee and call him majesty).

J.J. Abrams knows story and I appreciate that above everything. My biggest Star Trek related hope is that the sequel doesn't suck. I adore these characters. I guess I see where the Trekkies are coming from.

Cache (2005)

Award winning director and Christopher Lee lookalike Michael Haneke (pronounced like the Hanukkah) came to my grad school while I was a student there. In preparation for his visit, we watched the original version of his film Funny Games (unfortunately for the world, there is a shot-for-shot English language remake done by Haneke himself). 108 minutes later, my entire MFA class wanted to run screaming through a plate glass window. Funny Games is intentionally mean spirited and manipulative. It's a commentary saying "Hey! You're a dumb member of the public!" It's terrible. So, since then, despite the glowing reputation Haneke has in the rest of the world and despite his film The White Ribbon being nominated for Best Foreign Film at the Oscars this past year, I've avoided his stuff like Swine Flu.

However, Cache had been sitting in my Netflix queue for ages. Due to my forgetfulness, Cache made it to the top of the queue and ended up in my mailbox. Thus, it had to be watched.

Happily, Cache was nothing like Funny Games. It had its foreign art house tendencies - super long shots, some naturalistic disengaged dialogue, vague insinuations about what's really going on, and no true conclusion. But the plot was engaging and I felt like I was seeing a part of the world I don't know. I know next to nothing about French/Algerian relations. This movie got me interested. And Juliette Binoche is one of the best actresses on the planet. I always enjoy seeing her.

The movie has a mystery type plot. A somewhat bored suburban family starts receiving tapes indicating that they're under surveillance. Eventually, drawings (like the one above) are included that pique the families suspicions about who is behind it all. It's hard to know who is in the right, whose side we should be on, and who, if anyone, is to blame for everything that transpires. It's interesting. It's defiantly worth seeing. I only wish Cache was the film they chose to show us before Mr. Haneke's visit. I wouldn't have had to waste my time shooting daggers at the man who had ruined 108 minutes of my life. See Cache. Run far far away from Funny Games.

Whatever You Say (2002)

Whatever You Say is French. The subtitlers can't seem to decide if it should be Whatever You Say or Anything You Say. I'm letting you know it exists out there as both so that you can avoid it.

I rented this because Guillaume Canet is the star (and writer and director - oof) and I enjoy looking at him. He's dreamy. I dig his vibe. But I do not dig his writing. This movie isn't anything. It's not really bad bad like Swingers bad. But it's not emotionally engaging in any way. Protagonist Bastien (Guillaume) is a dick. And he doesn't change. The plot shifts tones three times from dramaish to comedy to dark creepy weridness. There's some animation randomly thrown in for good measure. And an ending that settles nothing and means less.

In that picture, he's like "Wha? You didn't like my film? I'm French." I wouldn't waste your time with this one, kids. If you want to gaze lovingly at Guillaume and feel jealous of Marion Cotillard, go watch Love Me if You Dare. It's charming.

Shutter Island (2010)

I LOVE Shutter Island. If you disagree - you are wrong. It's better than Inception. If you disagree with that - again - you are wrong. This movie is the best movie I've seen in a long long time. I saw it in the theatre when it came out and I was enamored. I've recently purchased the DVD and let me tell you, it's even better the second time around. If you haven't seen it - stop reading. I'm about to go all spoiler on your ass.

The final thirty seconds of Shutter Island elevates it to brilliance. In case you didn't get it - Leonardo DiCaprio's character is sane in the end. He's pretending to be crazy because he'd prefer to be lobotomized than go on living knowing what he did. I'm sorry if I sound patronizing, but I do think it's missable. I know some folk who missed it. It's genius. It's the ending of Inception without douchebaggery. There's a final knife twist in your gut but it doesn't send people to the message boards screaming, "THE TOP WOBBLED!" It's a fantastic ending related to character and I appreciate that.

For my money, it's the best Scorsese film. If you disagree with that, I won't say you're wrong. I think film school can kill movies and it killed Taxi Driver and Mean Streets for me. And people emotionally connect to Goodfellas in a way that I never have. I find The Aviator overrated. And I flat out do not like Gangs of New York, Casino, or The Departed. But that's a topic for another post. Shutter Island benefits from an extremely tight story. Scorsese is allowed to do what he does best - create a mood, create tension, and direct actors. In other films, his plot is often so sprawling I'm rolling my eyes by the end no matter how impressed I was with the direction. Shutter Island does not have that problem.

I'd also like to address a problem a lot of people seem to have with Shutter Island according to the banal IMDb boards. Lots of people say they saw the ending coming. Here's the thing. From the beginning, there are really only two ways it's all going to go. Leo is crazy. Leo is not. Thinking, "Leo is crazy!" at some point during the movie does not mean you saw the ending coming. It means you're watching Shutter Island. The ending is a reveal no matter how you slice it. There is nothing in there that would allow us to determine Leo killed his wife who killed his kids and Mark Ruffalo is really a doctor and everyone is playing along and his name is an anagram and on and on and on. We're meant to question Leo's sanity. Oh you IMDb posters who think you outthought the movie - you're wrong. You were right where they wanted you.

And...because I can't help myself...those of you who think there is a case to be made for Leo actually being sane all along, i.e. Gandhi convinced a sane man he was crazy at the end, You Are Wrong. It is NOT open to interpretation. You Are Wrong and you're pathetic for thinking you're smarter than the film. You Are Wrong.

My rant is over. I'm sorry if it bored you. But I adore Shutter Island and I think it's painfully underrated - especially in the wake of the other Leo's-having-issues-because-his-wife-was-crazy movie. Shutter Island is the only Martin Scorsese movie I'll intentionally watch again and again and if you haven't seen it, fix that. Please. For your own sake.

My Own Private Idaho (1991)

My Own Private Idaho is a really great movie. I've mentioned before that River Phoenix is one of those tragic figures who I, along with legions of others who are too young to remember him being alive, are drawn to. Thirteen year old me was into the tragedy and the oh-so-dreamy face. Twenty-five year old me has a bit more perspective and knows he was just a really good actor who died too soon. Thirteen year old me did not understand or enjoy My Own Private Idaho. Twenty-five year old me thought it was crazy good.

It's one of those rare movies that walks the line of pretentious art-house and linear plot with relatable characters well. It's definitely not Good Will Hunting but it isn't Last Days either. I like the balance. Obviously, a great deal of the credit goes to River Phoenix. Perhaps less obviously, a great deal of the credit also goes to Keanu Reeves. I acknowledge that Keanu is not The thespian of our times, but a few roles he hits right on the money. He was born to be Scott Favor just as he was born to be Neo in The Matrix and Jack in Speed. The dynamic between Keanu and River is pitch perfect, perhaps a byproduct of their real life relationship.

I'd like to see this again. There was so much going on, I feel like I probably only absorbed 50% of it. Some of the weird Shakespearian language especially I'd like to reexamine. Finally, I've gone this whole post without mentioning Gus Van Sant which is practically criminal. He's great. All of his films, whether I like them or not, I'm glad I saw. I always know going in that he's got something to say. He's earned my trust. If his name is on it, I'll give it a whirl. If you haven't seen My Own Private Idaho - go see it. Unless you're 13. In which case, wait about ten years.

Morvern Callar (2002)

Morvern Callar was a character study. I've mentioned before how much I adore Samantha Morton and her performance as the title character in this film was indeed fantastic. But it's not a movie for everyone. The film stays extremely close to our protagonist, following her for just a short amount of time after a traumatic event in her life.

If you read a synopsis, it will say something along the lines of, "After her boyfriend commits suicide, Morvern Callar decides to present his novel to a publisher, claiming it as her own and stealing the money and credit." That's all I had read about this film before seeing it. FYI - that synopsis is crap. That happens, yes, but it is in no way what the movie is about. I would estimate that plot point takes up about fifteen minutes, five scenes max. The film is about her and how she copes (or doesn't cope) with loosing her boyfriend. It's a slow moving, languid film that lets you see what's happening without telling you what it means. A great deal is done to make Morvern seem like a real person and it's very interesting. This isn't a movie I enjoyed, per-se, but I think it is a well made, well acted film. If you enjoy Samantha Morton as much as I do, check this one out.

Scott Pilgrim vs. the World

I really enjoyed Scott Pilgrim vs. the World. It was big, it was flashy, it was funny, and it moved a mile a minute. I read in some review that this is a movie for the ADD generation. No kidding. We're in and out of scenes at breakneck speed and there's always something new to look at.

When I was 19, my friends and I took a road trip to Toronto because *ahem* the legal drinking age in Ontario is 19. And we had to find "vacationy" things to do. So we went to Casa Loma which is this huge castle that some rich guy built a long time ago that is now mostly used for movies. Anywho - there is a scene in Scott Pilgrim that takes place outside Casa Loma and it's the first time I've seen Casa Loma be used as Casa Loma. It was cool. My friends endured me saying "I've been there!" about a dozen times.

But back to the movie. I posit that you have to like Michael Cera to like this movie. He is Michael Cera-ing it up beginning to end. He's good - in that way that he's good - and I kept thinking how lucky this kid is that he has some comedic talent because otherwise, he would probably never get laid.

The uber-expansive supporting cast was also very good. Especially Kieran Culkin, Ellen Wong, and Mae Whitman (who I love anyway). The fight scenes were a tad long - especially the final one - but it wasn't much to worry. This movie entertained and made me laugh. That's exactly what I was hoping it would do. Score.

Rent (2005)

On August 8th, as my B-day gift, my awesome friend and roommate, Nikki, got me a ticket to see Rent at the Hollywood Bowl directed by Neil Patrick Harris and starring Wayne Brady, Vanessa Hudgens, Nicole Scherzinger and I think those were all the famous people. WE wanted to see it because Roger was being played by Aaron Tveit - a super hot Broadway boy who rocked our socks as an original cast member in Next to Normal and was painfully overlooked come Tony time, and Mark was played by Skylar Astin - a original cast Spring Awakening alum with a great voice who we hadn't really seen since Hamlet 2. As expected, both dudes were phenomenal (at least I think they were - they were really really far away). Some of the famos were better than I expected them to be - especially Nicole Scherzinger. For the record, Vanessa Hudgens BLEW. Like hard core. Bad singing. No acting. I won't rip her to specific shreds, but she should stay in her element.

Anyway...that was one long setup to say that when we got home, we felt inspired to watch the movie version of Rent. Which, thankfully, I own. I'm going to defend my ownership of said movie with two points. 1. I have long admitted that I will forgive a musical movie many faults just because musicals are one of my preferred genres. 2. The numbers in the movie version of Rent are good. Well danced, well sung, fun and full of energy.

Unfortunately, there is a lot of in-between-musical-numbers and it is far far less good.

We got to talking about why the movie, dare I say it, sucks. My position is - and will remain - it's as good as it can be and still be Rent. Rent does not have a movie structure. There isn't one solid protagonist, there aren't three acts, they don't all arc and I think, at its core, it's too sprawled out for a movie. To be a great movie, half the numbers would need to go and Roger would need to be the star. And you can't nix Mark and still call it Rent. Conundrum!

Little issues like Roger's hair being the wrong length - yes. Those could have been fixed. But - those aren't the reasons why my friends in Michigan (who couldn't pick Roger out of a lineup of two) didn't like this movie.

And - in the show, the following things happen after 9:00pm on Christmas Eve. Collins gets mugged, gets helped, hangs with Angel, Benny threatens Mark and Roger, Mark goes to fix Maureen's equipment, Roger meets Mimi, Mark returns home, Collins appears with Angel, they go to a Life Support meeting, Mimi visits Roger (at "close to midnight" presumably), Roger kicks her out, Roger goes out with the gang, Roger finds Mimi, Maureen actually has her protest (what - scheduled for 4:00am?) there's a riot and then they go to dinner at which point Roger and Mimi act like they've known each other longer than a few hours. It's absurd. We can ignore that on stage. I don't think we could have or would have in a film.

Anyway - that's a post on Rent. Rent's amazing. The movie's not as amazing and if you never got to see it on stage - see the recorded Broadway version. It's good. MUCH better than the movie.

Oh - and if you happen to get your hands on the feature version - the best bit is the documentary on the special features disc. Makes me weep every time.

Before Night Falls (2000)

I didn't really enjoy this movie. Yes, Javier Bardem is a fantastic actor and the story, at its core, is interesting. But this film felt like a project made by a director who is so in love with his own abilities he just spews random visuals all over the place to demonstrate his magnificence. I preferred The Diving Bell and the Butterfly by a mile. The Diving Bell and the Butterfly required some directorial trickery but this movie did not. The filmic blah blah blah of trees and waves and hot air balloons was pretentious dribble and a snooze to boot.

One other complaint was the inclusion of Sean Penn and Johnny Depp. Both are actors I love, but neither needed to be in this film. They're distracting. Throughout Sean Penn's scene, I missed every bit of dialogue because I was too busy thinking "Is that Sean Penn. Yes. That's definitely him. No, that's not him. Why would that be him? But I'm pretty sure that's him."

On the bright side, Diego Luna was in this for about two minutes. So that was a nice surprise.

Overall - not my fave.

Fear (1996)

What a silly little nothing of a movie. I had never seen Fear - I don't know how I missed it back in 1996 - but it felt like an extra good lifetime movie. The appeal these days is the time capsule this movie has become. Marky Mark with his modelesque torso, Reese Witherspoon looking like she's twelve, and Gil Grissom (I had to look that up, FYI. I've never actually watched an episode of CSI) displaying the acting chops of an oak tree. And the nineties fashion! Could their skirts be any shorter? Could they wear any more plaid? Could they cut Mark Wahlberg's sweatshirt any higher? It was all worth a laugh.

The plotting is absurd. Happily, it was absurd enough to be funny. My favorite bits? Mark Whalberg turning into insane-o boyfriend five minutes after Reese gives it up. It was just like Angel becoming Angelus. Except less realistic. And Mr. Pussy-Pants Garry getting his neck broken after a happy little jaunt home through the darkened woods. And the dog's head through the doggy door! In a better movie, that might actually have been creepy. And the note on daddy's car after the windshield has been busted out! I'll let you check out the movie yourself for that little gem. And the title. What a stupid name for a movie.

This movie was funny. I enjoyed it. There was bad 90s music, bad 90s clothes, Marky Mark, Alyssa Milano, and poor writing. What else does anyone need to construct a movie so bad that its good?

Pulp Fiction (1994)

Pulp Fiction is one of the best movies ever. Argue with me. Go ahead. I dare you. I welcome the non-challenge of proving you wrong.

It's story. It's what story should be. Story story story. It's surprising, it's smart, it's real but not really real. Each and every character is the protagonist of their existence and that's exactly how all films should feel. They all move around in this one world, bumping into each other, making appearances in others' stories when it makes sense for them to do so. I always wonder if Jules hears about Vince's death and what he thinks. Or Mia. It's such a cool piece of story for the protagonist of one chunk to show up in someone else's only to be blown away. And the unpredictability is so cool. Who would see the whole gimp episode coming? No one, that's who. And that's awesome. Same thing with poor Marvin getting his head blown off. I that's probably my favorite moment in the film, "The Bonnie Situation" my favorite story.

I was thinking recently about films where protagonists don't arc. The only films I could come up with were bad films. But - this film might have a case for being both good and mostly arc-less. Jules arcs. Obvi. But I don't think anyone else does. Not Vince, not Butch, not Mia. I think Butch is the most surprising because he's arguably the most protagonisty in terms of desires and conflict. But he's no different at the end than he was at the beginning. Perhaps it's an off screen arc? Perhaps in the beginning when he's listening to Marsellus, he's planning to actually throw the fight. And when we see him next, he's arced into choosing his pride over his safety. He's opted to say screw you. I don't know. It doesn't really matter. I'm just rambling.

Any way you slice it, this movie is terrific. It's entertaining, it's fun, it's smart, the acting is great, the direction superb, and I can watch it over and over until the end of time. All hail Tarantino.

Peacock (2010)

Peacock was almost awesome. I think the script was probably really great - creepy, full of psychological horrors, and clever in a way that few movies dare to try. However, the execution just wasn't there.

I always feel bad about saying mean things about a movie after I've watched the special features. Everyone tried so hard. But the biggest, crater sized, grand canyon of an issue with this movie is obvious to anyone with eyes. Quick mention of what this movie is about first.

Cillian Murphy plays Emma and John. John is this dude who was abused like crazy as a young'un in by his mom (who I'm pretty sure is voiced by Sally Field although she isn't given credit). So, when she dies, poor John goes mental and gets all personality split. He becomes Emma - the chick of the house - who cooks his food, does his laundry, and does the cleaning. He doesn't remember what he does as Emma and Emma doesn't remember what John does as John. Eventually, Emma becomes a problem for John as she does things he doesn't want her to do.

Spotted the problem? Check out the pics. How difficult would it have been to give John some glasses and a hat? Or give Emma some glasses and a hat? Yes, her makeup is soft and lovely. Yes, the clothes look homemade and somewhat cover the adam's apple situation. But everyone in that town with eyes would know. It's absurd to try and convince us otherwise. The super super super easy fix would have been to keep our town characters separate. Only let the town newbies ever see Emma. But alas. We watch these scenes completely incredulous that we're meant to buy what's going on. It ruins what could be a fun ride otherwise.

Cillian Murphy is phenomenal 100% of the time. He rocks both roles and does what he can to make us believe people would think these were two separate individuals. But he can't hide that he's Cillian Murphy and that's the problem. Ellen Page is also in this, Canadian accenting her way through. I don't think I'd mind hanging out with her in reality, but she's Juno in every role she takes.

I'm telling you, this script was a clever idea. It has to be the one and only reason this film attracted the talent it did. I wish it had worked out better for everyone.

Body of Lies (2008)

Body of Lies was a movie I could have lived without. It wasn't bad and it wasn't really good. It wasn't boring or too complicated but it also wasn't very interesting or unique. It came and went. I shrugged.

To be fair, this isn't my preferred genre. I often say - and I'm about to say it again - that a good movie is a good movie and people who discount any film based on genre alone are dumb. Or lazy. Or they don't care - which is acceptable. But film people who say it are dumb. Or lazy. However, I can't deny that everyone prefers some genres to others. I'm always going to enjoy a musical more than perhaps its filmic worth would indicate. I would never try to argue that Rent is a good (or well made) film but damned if I don't enjoy it. Okay - so - point. Espionage action, especially set in the Middle East, aint my bag. And this movie isn't good enough to overcome it's genre. So I'll probably never watch it again.

Ebert said, and I agree, "'Body of Lies' is a James Bond plot inserted into today's headlines." That's my other issue with it. It was like they decided to write a movie where us awesome Americans actually get to catch Osama Bin Laden. Without ever actually showing a terrorist attack on American soil. We're catching the guy that bombed Amsterdam who is threatening to bomb us. Whatever.

And the protagonist. He's what should have made us care. But there is almost zero about him as a person. He's getting a divorce. That's all we know. Do we care? Not really. And I'm sorry, but on no planet would Leonardo DiCaprio be able to pretend he's Middle-Eastern. (I wasn't quite sure he was pretending to be Middle-Eastern - but Ebert thinks he was. So we'll go with Ebert). There just isn't enough character. Anywhere. Russell Crowe's role was all but unnecessary and I'm surprised Russell Crowe's people wanted him to do it. It must have just been because of Ridley Scott. His character was an aged version Ari Gold from Entourage, barking orders into his bluetooth while dropping his kids off at school.

Maybe I dislike this movie more than I initially thought. I saw it because Leonardo DiCaprio is a great actor and I'm a loyal fan who will see him in pretty much anything. Now that I can check this movie off my list, I never have to think about it again.

Withnail And I (1987)

Withnail and I was a funny little film. In many ways, it reminded me of an existentialist play. They aren't totally waiting for Godot, but there are scenes where it feels like they are. Normally, a film with so little plot would irritate me. But this film was funny. And charming in a strange sort of British way. Richard Griffiths as Withnail's gay, rich uncle was my favorite character and I found the scenes involving him funniest.

I don't have a whole lot to say about this film. I read somewhere that it's Johnny Depp's favorite movie, so take that as you will. It's funny, it's thinly plotted, it has some British absurdist humor throughout that you may or may not enjoy. It's worth a whirl.

The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo (2009)

This movie.

I've heard people rave and rave and rave.

I've read this review at The Playlist where they loathed it. Shredding it in true pretentious Playlist fashion. (Love you, Playlist...)

I'm definitely somewhere in the middle. It's over long and there are some debatably unnecessary character building tangents. But I enjoyed the movie. I was entertained, and the title character was unlike any character I've seen before.

She is a hard core, pierced, motorcycle riding, computer hacker that no one should mess with. She sleeps with men and women and she keeps her thoughts and feelings to herself. She's the movie. She's what's unique about it. The Playlist was not a fan of a sequence in the first half hour or so where she gets revenge against an (overly) evil probation officer. I was on her side with that revenge. And I was shocked. I think this sequence does what it's intended to - it tells us what she's like and if you don't like it (or her), stop watching now.

It's true that all of the characters apart from her are fairly cookie cutter. I would argue that with her character being so different from what we're used to seeing, it's not unreasonable for the author (or screenwriter) to keep the rest of the cast fairly understandable.

The plot is a plot. It's not genius. It's not absurd. Mysteries aren't typically my bag. They tend to be either obvious or so ridiculously complex that no movie goer could play along. I'm never going to be particularly interested in the mystery itself if only because I know the ending will (almost) never live up to the twists of the plot along the way. (Shutter Island is the first movie in a very long time where I found the ending to be as cool as the journey). This movie had Lisbeth, and I was content to watch her be sort of awesome.

This movie gets talked about. For that reason alone, I would recommend it. Nothing drives me crazier than people with strong opinions about movies they haven't seen (or books they haven't read or musicians they haven't heard). It's an entertaining watch. It's got some graphic sex stuff so beware of that. But The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo is a cool chick and I look forward to seeing the sequel.