2009 Film List (Reviews, Discussion & Tracking) (1 Viewer)

[Michael Reuben]

Cirque du Freak: The Vampire's Assistant is, as many critics complain, overstuffed and overbusy -- and that's what I liked about it. After way too many ponderously emotional vampire tales, it was great to sit through one that was one long shaggy dog story, not a moment of which should be taken seriously. A truly stellar cast of veteran character actors keep things interesting, but my favorite was an almost unrecognizable Michael Cerveris (the Observer from Fringe), his face and body hidden under a ton of prosthetics but that unmistakable voice rising to its theatrical finest. Even if the sequels don't get made, this is a funny film. (Then again, I liked Mystery Men.)

The Invention of Lying. Yech. Even reviewers who ended up not liking the film thought the first half hour was great. I thought it was awful, because it's based on a cheat. There's a big difference between not being able to lie and immediately blurting out everything that's on your mind. Most of the "comedy" in the first part of Invention comes from the latter. The film doesn't get good until Gervais' character discovers lying and begins to explore its uses. The man-in-the-sky and the invented 14th century manuscript are worth inventions, but you have to sit throught some pretty tiresome stuff to get to them. (And let's face it: Monty Python and the Holy Grail already did the pizza box scene.) My wife wanted to see this, and she's indulged enough of my choices that I owed her this one. But Gervais is on probation for his next film.

 

[Adam Lenhardt]

I caught a matinee screening of the 3D version of A Christmas Carol this afternoon with my mother. It's a strange confection of a movie; aside from the visceral acrobatics, it's probably the most faithful adaptation I've yet seen. The movie opens with a CG rendered copy of the book's first edition. It opens to the first chapter and zooms in on the first sentence: "MARLEY was dead: to begin with. There is no doubt whatever about that." We zoom through the word "dead" into the funeral parlor containing the departed Jacob Marley, and from there we're off. I would guess that around 90 percent of the dialog comes directly from the Dickens text. I doubt I would have been able to understand a lot of it, but the children in the theater -- and the theater was packed with children -- were completely absorbed in the movie. The character designs appear to be directly inspired by John Leech's original illustrations; only the more prominent characters have been distorted to more closely approximate the actors whose voices and body motions bring them to life. There are a few touches that remind us it's a Zemeckis picture, as when the young boys -- and later Scrooge -- grab onto the back of the carriages and glide behind them atop the snow much as Marty McFly rode behind cars with his skateboard. For the most part, though, it's a straight take on 19th century, industrial-era London. Seeing the city's Victorian era with just the right balance between soot, grime and nostalgic warmth was one of the primary joys of the picture. Jim Carrey isn't the best Scrooge, but he's far from the worst. Colin Firth, however, might just be the best nephew Fred. Gary Oldman makes a better Joseph Marley than he does a Bob Cratchit. Bob Hoskins is the ideal Mr. Fezziwig, and the supporting cast does a perfectly serviceable job.

 

[Adam Lenhardt]

Rented the 2009 version of The Taking of Pelham 123, which was actually a lot better than I thought it'd be. It was closer to the original novel than any of the previous versions, which many characters recognizable in appearance and role if not name. The movie suffers from two crucial failings: 1) The decision to transform the story into a two-man conflict between Denzel Washington's Garber and John Travolta's Ryder. Ryder was the calm, steely focal point of the original novel, and his cool eery professionalism was far more striking than Travolta's usual mugging for the camera. The original Ryder was a sociopath, whereas this Ryder is merely a mental former Wall Street guy. The Garber character in the book was very minor; the Garber here is a composite of many smaller characters, primarily Transit Police Lt. Clive Prescott. What the movie loses by consolidating characters is the tapestry of how New York City works, how the pieces fit together. Because you have to stick with two characters from beginning to end, the motorman had to die and ruin the book's sublime ending. Switching drivers also undermines the story's trump card: the defeating of the dead man's switch. Rotating perspectives like the book did would have depersonalized the movie, but I think it would have also made it a lot more interesting and believable. 2) The needless attempts to modernize the story. I don't know what it says about the MTA that the 6 train hasn't changed since the book's publication in 1973, but it meant that they could keep the details of the heist identical. For the most part they did so, and it plays out very effectively here. By introducing the subplot with Ryder as a pensions manager instead of a mercenary, it requires explaining how the internet would get to a subway train that wouldn't normally have service. It also means that both sides know way more about each other than they otherwise would. Cell phones have killed a lot of the limitations that drama feeds off of; why, when you have a perfectly organic explanation to why communication would be limited to the motorman's radio, would you needlessly remove the limitations? All that being said, the story remains an excellent example of pulp fiction overlayed on top of the real world in a way few books or movies bother with.

 

[Adam_S]

I adored the new Christmas Carol. sure it's got some gee whiz crap in there to make the producers feel better about spending so much money, but goddamn if Zemeckis didn't fool them and make a drop dead amazing adaptation. I hesitate to call it an instant classic, but it's really the first Christmas Movie since the Santa Clause that I think deserves that label. Wow, the language and rhythm of dialog was just absolutely beautiful. The performances were all excellent, and the animation was often glorious, especially in Imax 3d (this is actually the first imax3d movie I've felt was worth the money and the first 3D movie since Monster House or Up that I thought the premium was worthwhile). Just absolutely brilliant all the way through, my only disappointment was that I saw it at a late show and missed the excellence of seeing it with an audience of families. This is great, classic storytelling. Loved it.

The one caveat I would have is that the women still look fake next to the men. this was a problem with Beowulf but it's more noticeable here with Robin Wright Penn (whoever is playing Scrooge's love interest) because she's just too symmetrical and blemish-less, makes her more barbieish next to all the other animation. Additionally the animation in wide shots is still model stiff and ineffective, and one zoom in is particularly disconcerting as the camera goes from very wide to a medium shot of a caroler and it's almost like seeing her get more processing time as the camera gets closer as it goes from appearing puppetlike to appearing life like.

Also, the dead eyes from Beowulf are completely gone, I'd go so far as to say that Jim Carrey's eyes are soulful in the film.

 

[Michael Reuben]

I'm really beginning to wonder what goes on in the minds of professional film critics.

A.O. Scott needs someone to explain to him the plot of The Box? Is he serious? It may not be presented in the most straightforward fashion, but it's not exactly mysterious by the end.

Scott and Michael Phillips can't figure out what Ewan McGregor is doing in The Men Who Stare at Goats? A film where he plays it absolutely deadpan while his character investigates a covert military group that routinely refers to themselves as "the Jedi"? And who early on declares that he never imagined himself as some blond kid on a faraway planet suddenly discovering that he has a destiny?? These supposed film experts can't figure out that they're watching an elaborate parody in which all of the major characters are elaborate goofs on other characters the actors have played?

 

[TravisR]

Originally Posted by Michael Reuben

I'm really beginning to wonder what goes on in the minds of professional film critics.

A.O. Scott needs someone to explain to him the plot of The Box? Is he serious? It may not be presented in the most straightforward fashion, but it's not exactly mysterious by the end.

I admit it was more 'heady' than I expected but I could follow the plot of The Box as I watched it. And no one is ever going to accuse me of being able to write film criticism so I can't believe that a man who has a job in that field can't follow it.

 

[Adam Lenhardt]

On the DVD for The Taking of Pelham 1 2 3, there was a trailer for a low-budget direct-to-DVD film called Hardwired. It looked interesting and the Redbox in the grocery store I stopped at to pick up something for dinner had it in stock, so I went for it. Occupying a space somewhere in between an old "Outer Limits" episode and one of SyFy's awful Original Movies on Saturday nights, the movie invisioned an advertising saturated future where corporations rule in the aftermath of government insolvency. The latest advance involves a chip implanted into the brain which overlays three-dimensional advertising over the implantee's day-to-day living. The advertising becomes increasingly persistent until you buy or steal the product being promoted. A two-tier system is envisioned: The rich buy their chips and, in addition to being served advertising, can use their chips to surf the web, watch television, listen to music, etc. The poor agree to be implanted in exchange for having their medical needs taken care of. In the mean time, the company is testing the technology on the uninsured coming into E.R.s with tramatic brain injuries. The special effects don't hold up with feature-quality, but they far exceeded what I expected. While the supporting roles feature so-so to horrendous acting from no-name supporting actors, the project is elevated somewhat by has-beens Cuba Gooding Jr., Michael Ironside and Val Kilmer. Lance Henriksen makes a cameo at the end as the big bad, who would presumably have a larger role in a sequel down the line. The movie's problems are obvious and run deep, starting with a hackneyed screenplay and continuing with very mediocre production values (although innovative, redressed use of the New York City exterior sets from Watchmen gives the film a far more expansive feel than it has any right to). That being said, the story was interesting and Cuba Gooding Jr. (an excellent actor who's done a really poor job picking roles) elevated the project above what it would have otherwise been. I feel like I got my dollar's worth.

 

[Justin_S]

My most recent '09 viewings:

The House of the Devil - a college student who has just finalized a deal for her own place needs money, so she takes a babysitting job. However, it turns out that the gentleman who hired her lied. She won't be babysitting children, but instead the man's mother... or so he says. She thinks of leaving, but is offered $400 dollars and stays. She'll wish she'd just trusted her instincts. The poster for this thing is a beauty. Truly a throwback to the older posters made for genre films in the 70's and 80's, it alone was enough to interest me in this movie. Alas, it doesn't live up to it's poster, though I guess that was often the case. Things start out well enough, but this is yet another film from the director of The Roost that takes a pretty threadbare plot and does little with it. After the initial setup, the film drags on and on as the lead feels uncomfortable with her surroundings. I'm a fan of slow build as much as the next guy, but there's a difference between that and being plain dull. Once we do get to the action, it's over almost as quickly as it began and it's nothing particularly out of the ordinary. Not really worth waiting that long while nothing happens. I also feel that the girl would have split pretty quickly, even if the house was in the middle of nowhere. On the upside, Jocelin Donahue is a solid, appealing lead. I'd love to see her in more things. The atmosphere is also pretty thick at times and the thing does feel like an older style horror film. I wanted to like this one more, but Ti West needs to do a better job with pacing in the future.

The Fourth Kind - through archive footage and reenactments, this film explores the account of several unexplained occurrences in the town of Nome, Alaska. Following her husband's murder, Dr. Abigail Tyler decides to continue his studies in Nome, which has to do with several patients being unable to sleep and witnessing a strange owl outside their bedroom windows. Suicides, disappearances and possible alien abductions are also involved. I actually thought this was quite effective. The split screens and intercutting took some getting used to at first. It's a unique way of telling a story, and I felt that it paid off. Redundant? Sure, but refreshingly ambitious at the same time. Milla Jovovich was very good here. Will Patton is an underrated actor, but he goes a bit too over the top as Nome's sheriff. Elias Koteas is just sort of there. The mood is very eerie throughout, and there were two scenes that hit me pretty hard, the first one quite unexpectedly. That one was when Jovovich plays back the recording she made in her bedroom. The whole thing sent a literal chill through me, particularly the scream. That is without doubt one of the most piercing screams I've heard. The other was briefly shown in the trailer, what the cop sees above the house. I've said before that I'm a sucker for catching brief glimpses of something unnerving, and this is a perfect example of such an instance. The film isn't without fault. The plot point with Tyler's son felt cliche and the resolution to the husband murder storyline is underwhelming, but I was pretty impressed with the film as a whole. The fact that it's all fiction didn't detract from my enjoyment.

The Box - based on Richard Matheson's story, Button, Button. A man (Frank Langella) delivers a box to a family's doorstep. In it is a "button unit", a contraption that will bring about the death of a person that no one in the family knows, but only if either the husband (James Marsden) or wife (Cameron Diaz) pushes the button. Why would they do such a thing? Because pushing the button will also see them rewarded a million dollars. Richard Kelly's latest directorial effort is quite entrancing. It's interesting that this film is titled what it is, as Kelly makes films that are very much outside the box and I hope he doesn't change. While I feel that this is the weakest of his three works, it's still full of intriguing ideas. I will say that this is Kelly's most elegant film to date. The look lends it a certain class. I loved the 70's decor and particularly the NASA sets. The atmosphere as a whole comes of as rather ethereal in feel. There's also Langella, who has an air of elegance about him even with half his face missing. The story itself has a few hiccups, perhaps due to being cut down from the director's nearly three hour original. That said, I don't think this material warrants such a lengthy running time, and what's here works well enough in spite of the flaws. Exploring themes of morality and altruism, Kelly heads off in directions that could only come from the mind of the man behind Donnie Darko and Southland Tales. The library scene especially is so Kelly-esque that I'm sure I would've guessed the director had I not known beforehand. Another thing I liked was how the film plays with your expectations at one point in reference to the 80's Twilight Zone episode that also adapted this story. And hey, Cameron Diaz wasn't as irritating as usual. That in itself is some accomplishment.

 

[Adam Lenhardt]

Roland Emmerich has mastered the genre he has dominated for the last two decades: with 2012, he has achieved the pinnacle of cinematic spectacle. No other film approaches it in sheer scope, and no film will be able to surpass it without losing relatability and scale. Go any larger and you have Krypton or the Death Star exploding in 2-5 seconds. It is not a perfect movie, but it deserves four stars just for that. Not only is the devastation complete and unprecedented, Emmerich is one of the few film makers today who realizes that you derive more power from holding on your camera on shots than you do with constant intercutting. Someone of those shots will remain iconic for decades to come. The story follows characters from all around the world, and presents an idealistic vision in the face of unfathomable calamity. John Cusack is also, in my opinion, Emmerich's best protagonist yet. It's incredible that Columbia didn't try to get IMAX for this picture.

 

[Adam_S]

Oscar winner, Monique

 

[Michael Elliott]

Paranormal Activity

Another disturbing film from von Trier. I just got done watching this one about half an hour ago and it's still haunting my mind. My thoughts are all over the place on what the film meant and what it was trying to say but there's no question that the performances are brilliant as is the direction. I hope the actors will be remembered when it comes time for the Oscars but I'm sure this is the type of film they will gladly stay away from. It's not a flat out porn like some would have you believe but it's certainly adult only in nature but we need more works like this.

 

[Steve Christou]

Last new film I saw was Tarantino's The Dirty Basterds, sorry Inglourious Basterds. I liked it, didn't love it. The characters didn't do anythng for me and I didn't care if they lived or died. Especially Brad Pitt and his goon squad. The leading lady was okay though I found her totally unsympathetic, maybe a better director could have made some of these characters more human but than we wouldn't have a Tarantino film with all the stylized trimmings that come with it. The anachronistic soundtrack, the OTT violence, playing with time, screwing with history, the homages, the injokes, the winks and the nods. I'll probably like it more on the 2nd vewing which is usually the case with QT's films.
3 out of 5.

 

[Adam Lenhardt]

Mélanie Laurent was stunning in that movie, easily my favorite part since we got so little of Brad Pitt and his crew. I loved the way Tarantino as a European war movie; it would have been more obvious to shoot it in the Longest Day/Dirty Dozen style of the 1960's American WWII movies, but I would have found that far less interesting than what we got. Haven't gotten to the theater lately, but I hope to soon.

 

[Steve Christou]

She looks stunning in that photo, but I thought she was a little too cold and emotionless in the part. And without going into spoiler territory I was unsatisfied at the way Tarantino dealt with her story arc.

I did see one new film recently, the new Michael Caine film Harry Brown. I really liked it, a sort of British Death Wish, or Grandad Torino as some people are calling it. Old geezer Harry Brown lives in a council estate in South London where the residents are terrorized daily by gangs of vicious kids. True to life this is what 'Broken Britain' has become in recent years, kids with knives and guns, happy to end your life just for making eye contact with them. After his friend is killed by feral youths ex-marine Harry Brown turns vigilante and prowls the streets at night hoping someone would try and mug him.
A mesmerising performance by Caine. 4 out of 5.

 

[Adam_S]

Up in the Air is excellent, meditative, witty and often charming as it is tinged with sadness. It's not quite a great film, it felt a little distant to me, like it was trying to stay respectful by keeping its distance but that it lost some impactfulness by not going for the power chords. George Clooney pulls a Cary Grant here and gives a superb and sophisticated performance that is a masterclass of understatement, he entirely holds the screen, and he generously lets his leading women steal the thunder throughout the film. Anna Kendrick absolutely owns this movies, though. Were it not for Monique in Precious, I would say she'd be almost impossible to beat. She dazzles on screen without being glossy, she projects a sharp, focused and frigid demeanor that is as naive as it is her personal shield. there is a subtext to her characterization that informs us of a lot of the backstory of where her character is at the moment, long before we actually learn it--and that's great acting, not great writing. Kendrick is most often seen in the blue and green harsh hues of airport and office lightning, so when we see Vera Farmiga, luminescently composed in soft, warm bar and hotel lighting she comes off as a hundred times more beautiful, elegant, and alluring than her younger costar. Farmiga is excellent throughout the film, though she's more of a pivot point than a player in the film's plot and character development, she often has the best lines, and she uses her glamour, confidence and sass to steal every single scene she's in. The script is uniformly excellent, warmly human and richly funny in a way that very few comedies and even fewer dramas are these days, but it's not a sympathetic script, it touches on issues that many in the country face today quietly and elegantly, and it doesn't make apologies for the lives or careers of the characters (though there's a definite irony to what Kendrick's character is doing to Clooney's character that Wilder would very much appreciate and is really what makes the story work). The editing, particularly the opening credits is especially outstanding. So despite all these excellent elements, what's missing? The impact and heft, you're left drifting along at the end wanting a bit more and not quite getting it.

 

[Adam Lenhardt]

Redboxed State of Play, Kevin Macdonald's Americanized remake of Harry Potter director David Yates's very British 2003 television miniseries. I'm still not sure exactly how I feel about it. It apes the feel of All the President's Men very effectively, and ups the stakes as only a fictional story can. The MacGuffin, a private security firm that is becoming entangled in our war effort in a very insidious way, has considerable grounding in reality. But in the end, it all comes down to a very personal triangle between the reporter, his friend the Congressman, and the Congressman's wife. Studios apparently feel the stakes have to be personal, but I think the film would have been considerably more effective without the final twist -- even if that twist was brilliantly conceived and executed. Loved the end credits, with the the story going from terminal to the presses; unlike most movie newspapers, the fictional Washington Globe actually looked like the real deal instead of a college weekly. Didn't love that the volume for CCR's "Long as I Can See the Light" that they played over the credits was 10 times louder than the rest of the picture, waking up everybody in the house I'm staying at.

 

[Adam Lenhardt]

Redboxed The Proposal. As expected, Betty White was fantastic. The rest was better than I expected, but not great.

 

[Adam Lenhardt]

Added:
The Goods: Live Hard, Sell Hard Perhaps my most anticipated comedies of the year that I somehow missed in theaters, this one turned out to be a real disappointment on DVD. The best jokes were in the trailer, and the trailer arguably had better comic timing.

Up in the Air The only movie I've seen this year that actually feels like it's taking place in the 2009 we're all living through. A melancholy satire with a largely depressing ending, it is Reitman's most sophisticated work yet. A heartfelt look at human connection and its consequences in a world that increasingly seeks to isolate and dehumanize us. George Clooney is stellar as "termination facilitator" Ryan Bingham, a man who possesses all of Clooney's real-life charisma, good looks and charm but has virtually nothing to show for it. Vera Farmiga is terrific as Clooney's fellow traveller, giving a performance that takes us for the same ride she takes Bingham on. Anna Kendrick, a little mousy but cute in a Marisa Tomei sort of way, is also stellar as the incredibly driven and several times too tightly wound recent college grad whose plan to bring call center methodology to the practice of firing people threatens Bingham's entire lifestyle. I began the movie hating her and left the movie rooting for her. The relationship between her and Bingham is fascinating; he teaches her how to be a human being, and she forces him to recognize how much his lifestyle is costing him. Jason Bateman has a fun supporting role as Bingham's boss, who is pleasant generally but particularly upbeat about the collapse of the American economy: "These are the worst times on record for America; this is our moment!" His dark sense of humor is fueled by an acknowledgment and easy acceptance of his morally bankrupt objective. Quick appearances by Zach Galifianakis, Melanie Lynskey, Danny McBride and Sam Elliott are nice, but the best cameo comes from J.K. Simmons as one of the newly unemployed. He carries himself with such dignity, intelligence and confidence that he dominates the room. His character is one of the few that we actually get the feeling will make it alright on the other side.

On a side note, the theater I saw it in was packed. I'm not sure why this one isn't doing even better business.

 

[Steve Christou]

Well it's the beginning of a new year and I've updated my list of 2009 released films I've seen so far. There are plenty more I haven't got round to seeing yet, such as Up in the Air, New Moon, The Road and Sherlock Holmes.

 

[vgondral]

I think this good info about the Hollywood Movies if you want more info about the movies visit below website



Online Hollywood Movies