2009 Film List (Reviews, Discussion & Tracking)

The Collector - At the very least I had hoped for a pleasant diversion, but it was better than that. They really did alot with the budget they had. The film has a unique look and sound design. Solid use of music as well. It's fierce, it's visceral and it's nasty, but the atmosphere created here is what sets the thing apart from others. That and the collector himself, a wicked villain who goes after his victims with an intensity that I found refreshing. No slow slasher walk here. The eyes were a nice touch too, reflective like those of an animal. The security system from Hell is an intriguing twist on your typical home invasion setup. It certainly makes for some unique situations. There's a different trap around every corner, so no running at full blast to make an escape and you'd better watch where you fall. The boyfriend's fate is the film's best setpiece, almost Grand Guignol in it's execution. There are some suspension of disbelief flaws in there, but I enjoyed the ride too much to really mind in this case. It's a mean horror film that is strong on mood and takes itself seriously. Hard to believe it's from the guys behind various "Saw" movies, as I can't stand any of those.


A Perfect Getaway - While I was able to correctly guess the identity of the killer's just from watching the trailer, I still had a great time with this. The performances are really strong. I've heard others say that Zahn and Jovovich aren't a believable pairing. I've seen several instances of stunning women with less attractive guys, so that's nonsense. Aside from that, they're terrific together. It's a dialogue-heavy film with several amusing character moments thrown in, and the actors nail them, Olyphant being the standout. The humor actually works, the quirkiness adds to the picture. I also thought the b&w exposition scene was well-done, better than most scenes of it's ilk. These types of scenes are generally frowned upon, but here it winds up being a highlight. The Puerto Rican locations (subbing for Hawaii) are quite lovely, though the dangers of the trail aren't played up as much as I'd expected. They're not needed, however, as I found it plenty suspenseful as is. I'd say director David Twohy has more hits than misses, and this clever slice of pulpy horror continues that trend.

After watching the ten Universal classics at the theater, I told myself I needed to go to the movies more often so I'm going to try and go see at least one a week.  Since making this deal with myself last Saturday I've seen four so here goes:

 

Orphan (2009)  

Perfect Getaway, A (2009)  
Inglourious Basterds (2009)

(500) Days of Summer (2009)
  

 

Edited by Michael Elliott - 8/23/09 at 4:32pm

Completed a much-needed overhaul of the first post, which involved reformatting the text for the new software, updating the links to the induvidual lists to their new locations, pruning out links to placeholder posts that were never fleshed out into lists, and adding a link Steve Christou's list.

Also, added the 16-minute IMAX 3D preview for Avatar, which will go down as one of the most memorable moviegoing experiences of the year for me.

That's nice of you Adam, that link is useful. Clicking on the email notification link takes you to the first post of a thread instead of the newest which btw adds to my suspicion that the Huddler company has had little experience with forums in the past. Anyway in this instance its useful because the list links are in the first post.

I keep forgetting to update my list and have done so, concentrating on watched films released this year. As for reviewing the films, for instance GI Joe I've already posted a review in the relevant thread and in my forum blog so it'll be redundant to repeat it again here.

Michael Elliotts lengthy reviews would benefit from paragraph breaks and would make them more readable IMO, being that we're now in a more cramped environment than we were used to.

There is a terrific twist in A Perfect Getaway which I didn't see coming, but the film as a whole was underwhelming and dully directed by David Twohy who did such a grand job with the underrated sci-fi thriller Pitch Black.

No problem, Steve! I should have added you a long time ago, but I wanted to wait until things were looking settled before I relinked everything.
I'm glad I requested people post when they update their lists, because it keeps the thread near the top of the forum and prevents it from being static like previous Film List threads have been. But I think Michael's navigating the same tension the rest of us are: on one hand, the whole point of posting when you add films to your lists is to put down your thoughts about it; almost like, as Michael Reuben stated, a journal of your year in cinema. On the other hand, the forum does have Official Review Threads, so there's a hesitation to post a full-throated review here. So the style that has sort of evolved has tended toward one paragraph reviews, and some movies inspire longer paragraphs than others.

However, there's no hard-and-fast rule about any of it. I appreciate everyone that contributes, because sometimes their thoughts steer me to a film I otherwise wouldn't have bothered with.

Inglourious Basterds: I wasn't bored, but I didn't think much of it. Anything more, and I'll say it in the official threads.

World's Greatest Dad: Usually these days, when a film stars Robin Williams, you want to see anything else. This is the exception, because writer-director Bob Goldthwait (yes, "Bobcat") has made the funniest dark comedy since at least Election. Williams is a high school English teacher and frustrated writer with perhaps the most unlikeable teenage son ever portrayed on film. Williams tries to be a good father, but you can tell that he's been a pushover all his life. Then, about 40 minutes into the film, something happens that really tests him. You'll probably see it coming, because it's clearly foreshadowed, and as a result, some critics go right ahead and give it away (though the trailer wisely doesn't). I won't, and I advise skipping the reviews, because what develops from that point on in the film is so sick and cringingly funny that it's better to encounter it without any previous knowledge. Williams gives one of his rare restrained performances where everything happens inside, and in those moments where it threatens to break through his character's carefully maintained surface, it's both nerve-wracking and exhilarating. One Hour Photo was a good performance in a disappointing film; this is a great performance in a film that has the courage of its convictions to the bitter and satifying end.

I can't believe you removed your epic reviews Michael, I should have kept quiet.

I updated my list with State of Play which stars Russell Crowe and Ben Affleck. I wasn't very impressed with it and found it predictable, just the look on one of the main actors faces from the beginning gave the whole game away I thought. On the plus side it wasn't boring.

I miss Michael's contributions, too

Steve, it wasn't anything you said.  There's an alternate discussion going on in the "Track" thread about there not being enough talk and it seems sometimes the two threads go against one another in a negative way.  We've got these two threads as well as official discussion threads, official review threads, DVD threads and then unofficial threads.  There's a lot of threads for people to post in and it's starting to feel that a lot of discussions are being overlooked because things are just being posted in many different areas. 

It's always a debate for me to decide which one to post a current review in but figured I'd try to start posting more in this one since I've always enjoyed reading it.  At 12:05 tomorrow I will be seeing HALLOWEEN II and I want everyone to know how much I hate Zombie if I end up not liking the film.

It works out well for me, because many of the films I see don't have official threads. Those are the one I tend to write up here. Speaking of which:

Sin Nombre, one of the best films I've seen in 2009, hits DVD on Sept. 1. I did a capsule review in this thread, but a much longer review of the film and disc is here.

The Baader Meinhof Complex: This was the one finalist for the 2009 foreign language film Oscar that I hadn't yet seen.

Director Uli Edel has had a strange career. His film of Last Exit to Brooklyn was an American film that felt like it came from somewhere else, but it sort of worked. His Madonna disaster Body of Evidence is still ridiculed (rightly so, IMO). He's done solid yeoman's work on Tales from the Crypt, Oz and Homicide. But The Baader Meinhof Complex is like nothing else I've ever seen from Edel. It's a difficult film, and probably frustrating for someone with zero background in German history of the 1970s. Although the film does cram in a lot of information, it covers so much ground that, even at 2:30 running time, you really have to concentrate to keep up.

The short version is that the Baader Meinhof group (so named for Ulrike Meinhof, a journalist, and Andreas Baader, a student activist), a/k/a  the "RAF" or "Red Army Faction", were the Weather Underground of West Germany. But they went on a lot longer and did a lot more damage. Edel's film is a whirlwind docudrama that effectively recreates the mood and energy of the time and circumstances that made such a movement possible and even popular. Martina Gedeck (so brilliant in The Lives of Others) plays Meinhof with just the right level of enigmatic distance that you never quite know what motivates her (no one did). Moritz Bleibtreu (the man Lola ran to save in Run, Lola, Run) play Baader as the quintessential bad-boy outlaw. You can't stand him, but you understand why he fascinates the people around him. But the real standout is the beautiful Johanna Wokalek, who plays Gudrun Ennslin, the preacher's daughter who was the Bonnie to Baader's Clyde. She's the most scarily committed revolutionary in the whole group.

Bruno Ganz plays the law enforcement officer who finally manages to capture them, but he's also the one who understands that capturing them is only the beginning. It's a scary film, because it puts you right in close with people who emerged from comfortable and privileged circumstances with the unshakeable conviction that extreme violence was the only legitimate response to the ills of society. Merely despising such people, as Ganz's character tries, patiently but pointlessly, to explain to his subordinates, is not an effective way to defeat them.

I saw three genuinely interesting films this weekend, but I don't have time right now to write them up in detail. I'll just say that:
 

1. Amreeka is a fresh take on the classic tale of the immigrant's struggle in America; by keeping its aspirations modest, it far exceeds them;
2. Extract is my favorite Mike Judge film to date, even more so than Office Space, but people looking for big gags and punchlines will be disappointed; even though some fairly outrageous things happen, the real wit in this film is subtle and hidden, and it's all the more wicked because of it;
3. Big Fan is a tour de force for Patton Oswalt, who is scarily convincing as a loser whose passion for the NY Giants is second to none; but Oswalt and writer/director Robert Siegel (who wrote The Wrestler) always manage to keep the audience's sympathy, which is pretty remarkable given some of the extreme things Oswalt's character does.
   

And I saw one not all that interesting horror film by Sam Raimi, who 25 years ago caused an uproar in this country with the Evil Dead. Newspapers branded it and other violent horrors as Video Nasties and they were taken off the shelves, horror movies were banned left and right, mostly crappy Italian horrors from schlockmeister Lucio Fulci. Which didn't bother me much because I had a preference for the more elegant and classy Hammer Horrors, and the Universal Horror classics before that.

Anyway Sam Raimi returned to the horror scene with Drag Me to Hell and I thought it was rubbish. He has substituted gore for frequent shock cuts to the old hags face, and by frequent I mean every 5 minutes which really started to get tedious, especially when accompanied by loud shrieking noises. Raimi also likes to have things fly into peoples mouths, whether it be vomit, drool, a fly or an eyeball. I didn't like the climax and the actress playing the lead was unsympathetic so you don't really care what happens to her. Raimi should stick to Spider-Man, he still has an 80's horror mentality and frankly it's all a bit silly, amateurish and dated. 2 out of 5.

I know most of the world hates Ben Affleck but I had alot of fun seeing him in a good comedic role for the first time in years.

I don't know about most of the world, but he does seem to attract a lot of of online pettiness, none of which I take seriously. Anyone who can make a film as good as Gone, Baby, Gone has my respect. And yes, Affleck is very funny in Extract, particulary because he and Jason Bateman play so well off each other. For me there was even an extra "meta" layer watching the real Mr. Jennifer Garner opposite the pretend one from Juno (and I'll go out on a limb and suggest that Judge knew that was there and exploited it).

It's just dawning on me how good Bateman really is. He's so relaxed and unshowy that you can easily overlook the skill underpinning his performances. But if you think about how carefully he calibrates what he does, and how one notch up or down would throw off the whole scene, you start to realize that he's one of those actors who are so good at acting that people don't realize they're acting.

I also liked seeing Mila Kunis as a thief and liar (this isn't a spoiler, BTW, since it's shown in the opening scene). It's a much more believable character than the idealized angel of mercy she had to play in Forgetting Sarah Marshall.

I wanted to spend a night at the drive-in one more time before the season ended, so I went to the Malta Drive-In for a double feature:

Inglourious Basterds is a masterpiece, if you look at it as a Errol Flynn picture with occupied WWII France as the scenery rather than as a bonafide World War II picture. Brad Pitt, Mélanie Laurent and Christoph Waltz are the power centers of this film, and each carries his or her storyline with confidence, even bravado. Growing up with a father who loves war movies, I loved how much the movie felt like a war picture. At the same time, Tarantino's few indulgences to his regular style feel misplaced; Samuel L. Jackson's narration comes out of nowhere and the hero indentification title cards feel more Grindhouse than this film. Scenes like the one in the farmhouse and at the restaurant hint at something far more interesting than his usual onslaught of style.
On a presentation note, this was by far the best drive-in projection I have ever experienced. It helped that the days have gotten shorter so that it was dark in time, and it helped that the drive-in is rural enough that light polution doesn't intrude. Even setting those advantages aside, the projection was remarkably in focus and far superior to many of the regular cinema presentations I've experienced.

The Final Destinationfailed to live up to even its predecessors' lackluster standards. At this point, we know the series is going to be self-parody. But we at least expect Death's vengence to be suitably inventive, and plausibly accidental. This time around, the victim count is much lower and Death's hand is far more actively present. It was never going to be Shakespeare, but it didn't have to be so lazy. Would the 3D version have improved it? I doubt it; the best it could have done is help disguise some of the flaws. The laziest, shallowest, least intelligent entry yet.

Sick! Disturbing! Unwatchable! At least one newspaper here wanted Lars Von Triers controversial new film banned. I watched Antichrist last night and it left me bored more than anything else. It has nothing to do with the Bible, 666, Damien or the end of the world (sadly, I wish it was).

There are just two actors in the film, Willem Dafoe and Charlotte Gainsbourg, the story simple, the film opens with the couple fornicating with graphic close ups of genitalia, meanwhile their baby boy climbs up to the window and falls to his death, this is the opening few minutes of the film and sets up the main story. The couple are overcome with grief and guilt and they both go a little mad, particularly the wife. Thats basically the whole story, the nastiness comes from what they do to each other, I'll spoilerise a couple of the more disturbing scenes that come up -


Warning Spoiler! Click to show Not a film for the faint hearted. But the most disturbing film I've ever seen is still William Friedkin's The Exorcist, I saw it at a young age in a rerun back in the 70's and it haunted me back then, I've never seen a film since to match that for pure demonic evil. It's also my favourite horror movie.

Gamer - in a not too distant future, the world is obsessed with "Slayers", a game that allows it's players to control real death row inmates in a real world gaming environment. If they win a certain amount of games, the inmate receives a full pardon. The star inmate is Kable. He's won more games than any other "Slayer" has even come close to, and he's close to getting out. However, the game's billionaire creator, Ken Castle, has no intention of letting that happen. Mixing elements of The Running Man with bizarre game playing scenarios, outlandish events and a sizable chunk of social commentary, Gamer is an interesting if not always successful little action picture. The commentary on things such as people living reality through gameplay and the depths to which society will sink for entertainment are on the mark. Aside from "Slayers", Castle also created an earlier game called "Society", which is sort of like "Sim City", only with real people. Gamers control people in the game and make them do whatever disgusting act they want, such as burning themselves, sex fantasies and the like. I personally felt these were the most effective segments in the film, including a perfect use of the song, "The Bad Touch". Michael C. Hall was a big draw for me, as he is terrific on one of my favorite TV shows, Dexter. As expected, he was the standout among the cast. His Ken Castle is an over-the-top megalomaniacal nutcase, and I enjoyed every moment he was on screen. Alas, he wasn't on screen as often as I expected going in. We naturally get much more of Gerard Butler, who isn't much of an actor from what I've seen. He's tolerable here, but nothing special. We also get a few smaller roles for the likes of Kyra Sedgwick, Pathology's Milo Ventimiglia, Terry Crews, who feels out of place in a non-comedic role, and terrific Drag Me to Hell  actress, Alison Lohman. The action itself is underwhelming, as it suffers from the all too common quick cutting/shaky cam routine. I have to admit, that doesn't bother me as often as it does most people, but it did here. There's also one ridiculous scene involving Kable filling up a truck's fuel tank with something other than fuel. Regardless, while a flawed film, it does have some solid material to offer. It just could have been wrapped a little tighter.

Whiteout - based on a graphic novel, this tells of Carrie Stetko, a U.S. Marshal on assignment in Antarctica due to her own personal exile. Nearing the end of her tenure in the great white south, she gets sucked into a murder mystery when a body is found on the ice. I have never read the graphic novel, and if it was as poorly done as this film, I never care to. Pitiful, repetitive dialogue (count the "Oh my God"s), generic music blaring over the scenes on an almost nonstop basis, stiff performances and a mystery that is far from mysterious. The resolution of said mystery leaves you thinking "That's it?" more than anything. The director also beats us over the head with things that would best be discovered later on, but since we know before the characters, it sucks out any possible suspense there might have been. You can also spot one of the villains based on an old TV show rule. Bad, bad movie. Skip it.

Edited by Justin_S - 9/16/09 at 3:58am

Tyson (2008)

The best documentary I've seen this in a few years.  This film actually makes you understand why Tyson was doing all the things he did.  We've heard others talk about Tyson for two decades now but hearing him talk about it makes for some wonderful entertainment. 

Halloween 2 (2009)

The remake's remake/sequel is pretty bad from start to finish, although I hope twenty years from now we can look at this in the same light as an Ed Wood movie.  This is an incredibly ugly piece of trash where, once again, Zombie seems to think everyone and their mother is white trash.  If I hear the "f" word in a Zombie film again I'm going to wish I was the one being stabbed by Myers knife.  The sad thing is that this was better than the previous film.

Sorority Row (2009)

Remake of the 1983 film is more of a remake of I KNOW WHAT YOU DID LAST SUMMER but without any likable characters.  I really hated the characters here, their actions and pretty much everything else.  At least the "girls naked for no reason except for the big shower sequence" makes a comeback here.

Final Destination, The (in 3-D) (2009)

Hmm...let's remake JAWS but without a shark.  Let's make THE PASSION OF THE CHRIST but without Jesus in it.  Let's make a XXX without sex.  Or, let's make a 3D movie that features very little 3-D.  I expected a bad movie to be saved by the fun 3-D effects but the effects weren't used enough and the 75-minute running time could have been cut down by an hour and it still would have been boring. 

I saw District 9 recently, wasn't that impressed with it. A spaceship appears over Johannesburg in 'Sath Afreeka' and the aliens turn out to be pathetic insect-like creatures looking for a home or something, anyway 20 years later the area where they live has turned into a ghetto and people have lost interest in the creatures dubbed 'prawns', as if that would ever happen in the real world. Thats what I didn't find believable in this film, that aliens would land on Earth and after the initial excitement and fear, we would lose interest in them. Yeah sure.



The effects were reasonably good, a lot of the film is shot in shaky-cam and the lead actor has never acted before but does a pretty good job of it even if he does look like some geezer they found walking past the set one day. The film has a dreary, grotty look and feel to it, but than it is set in alien slums! [snort] It's not the most pleasant film, though I did like some of the violence, the creatures, pathetic though they be, can tear a man apart in seconds. And I like the fact they only speak in their clickety cluck alien tongue (did they have tongues?) and not in perfect English, like the lizard aliens in V did (hey I remembered V, was a big fan of that 80's mini-series)

District 9 is an interesting alien invasion film with a twist, but I didn't like it much. I'll give it 3 out of 5 for attempting something different. A rental.

Comments on Whip It are here.

Zombieland is a riot, and looking at the official threads confirms I'm not the only one who thinks so. My favorite things about it are what make it different from Shaun of the Dead. The joke in Shaun was that there wasn't much difference between the zombies and the spaced-out city dwellers, so that you had those funny shots of Simon Pegg wandering past zombies and not even realizing it. In Zombieland you get Jesse Eisenberg and his rules, but the joke is that it's no less hostile a world than the one he inhabited before the apocalypse; he just has to rewrite the rules. It's the perfect American zombie comedy that has only loners surviving, even if the leading one is a nerd who can't get laid.

Since last update:
Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince: The IMAX Experience. I'd promised to see the sixth Harry Potter movie again with a friend of mine who had no one else to go with... but he moved out of state before we got the chance. When I went to visit him in eastern Massachusetts, we managed to catch the very last showtime before Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs took over the screen. Some little kid pulled the fire alarm about a minute and a half into the film; they managed to get everybody seated again and resume the film, but I missed half the 3D portion exploiting the interruption for a bathroom break. Overall the experience confirmed two things: 1) fake, computer-generated 3D just doesn't work for live action. It was disorienting with Superman Returns, and it was disorienting here. The only thing effective about the 3D was the opening Warner Bros logo, which seems to fly out into the audience. 2) the film holds up on repeat viewings. What stood out on the second viewing is that many of Yates's flaws apparent in Order of the Phoenix are apparent here as well, in a milder and less damaging form. Most apparent is the editing issues: both film start out pretty choppy, with the second half paced and edited much smoother than the first half. It's still right up there with Goblet of Fire as the best of the series.

The Big Lebowski. The mainy reason for visiting my friend, however, was the Boston leg of the Lebowskifest: Speed of Sound tour. I had work on Monday, so we skipped the bowling on Sunday and just went to the screening Sunday night at the Boston House of Blues. Great atmosphere; several people were dressed up in character, including a very convincing Sam Elliot-as-the-Stranger. They had fold out chairs filling the floor, and waitresses toured the crowd selling White Russians. After a truly awful keyboard-and-drums band playing vaguely ominous Creedence covers left the stage, an impressive Dude impersonator took the stage with the festival organizers, dressed in giant Bowling Pin costumes. They psyched the crowd up, played a prerecorded message from Jeff Bridges for the tour (on the set of TR2N), and then started the movie. We're talking an SD-DVD, projected on a 30-foot screen designed for band's backing visuals, to a crowd in folding chairs. And it will remain forever the definitive viewing of The Big Lebowski for me. Every joke lands, people yelling out lines like at a Rocky Horror Picture Show midnight show, others cheering Walter's rants. Just a really good time, with my favorite Coen Brothers picture.

Zombieland. I have a friend who loves cheesy horror films. We went to college in the same town and used to catch lots of them. Now we live about an hour away from each other, and months can go by without talking. But I knew we had to see this one together. Originally written as a television pilot, first-time director Ruben Fleischer tacked on a gore-riffic climax in an amusement park and created perhaps the most enjoyable zombie picture I've ever seen, certainly the first one I'd like to see a sequel to. The differences Michael draws between this and Shaun of the Dead are apt, and say more about the culture each originates from that they do about the genre itself. Instead of a satire of dreary English urban monotony, Zombieland is a celebration of that quintessentially American ideal of "rugged individualism". The visual way Columbus's rules of survival -- which were probably largely the same even before one bad burger unleashed the zombie apocolypse -- are integrated into the scenery reminded me of the creative subtitle design for Night Watch: Nochnoi Dozor, only these are even better. It's a punchline that never seems to get old. And suprisingly, the entertaining zombie slaughter takes a back seat to the characters, who are sufficiently developed to grow on you. Woody Harrelson is the undeniable standout, Jesse Eisenberg continues to demonstrate the versatility of his schtick across genres, and Emma Stone succeeds at being both sexy and unapologetically calculating. Abigail Breslin continues her impressive track record of making adult films without having to play overly adult characters. And as someone who hates celebrity cameos in television and film, I can tell you all that this movie has the most effective cameo appearance I've ever seen. This one might just squeeze its way into the bottom of my Top Ten list for 2009.

Added:
The Invention of Lying. A friend was in town for the holiday weekend and wanted to see it, so we caught a matinee. The trailers hadn't left me particularly interested, but the film itself pleasantly surprised me. Setting aside the fact that a world completely devoid of untruth looks nearly identical to our own world, the movie mines the conception for all its worth. There is no religion, since presumably all of the world's prophets have actually been dirty, filthy liars. Names are descriptive rather than inspirational or aspirational. The daily paper is "The Daily Paper". Romance has been reduced to pairing off based on genetic suitability. People are harsh. Amidst this environment, we meet Mark Bellison: a fat loser with a snub nose. He lost his job, his romantic life is severely constrained by his genetic shortcomings, and he's on the verge of homelessness. At the bank, when he goes to cash out his account, something in his brain clicks into place, and he tells the world's first lie. The surprise is how he chooses to use this new power to redefine his life. His aims are generally decent, and largely selfless. As the first liar, he is also the first prophet; the movie may argue that all religions are false, but it doesn't argue that religious is meaningless or negative. His campaign to win the heart of Anna, the genetically superior woman whom he longs for, is almost entirely honest. He avoids lying about the big things, even when lying would certainly win her over. He doesn't want to trick his way into a relationship. Anna, quite against her intentions, falls in love with Mark but can't get over how short, fat, and snub-nosed their children would certainly be. Like Ghost Town, this film is surprisingly earnest in the best sort of way.

I did see both The Taking of Pelham 123 remake and Public Enemies at the weekend, and I enjoyed both films. Travolta was good value as the villain in Pelham 123, Tony Scott's new film was a little easier on the eyes than past efforts with some shots staying up on screen for 3 or 4 seconds, wahay! But as usual with the recent glut of remakes the original is still best, in this case they should have gone with the old adage 'if it ain't broke don't fix it' and the 1974 classic was not broke.



Public Enemies has plenty of bang for your money, and I do mean bang it looks like the sound department accentuated each gun shot so it sounds like someone fired a gun right next to your ear, there's no nodding off while this film is on. I thought Johnny Depp was a little wooden as Public Enemy Number One and moody Christian Bale barely registers in his one note role as John Dillinger's nemesis. The director is the star of Public Enemies, I wouldn't rank it as one of Mann's best films but it's still a good solid gangster movie. Recommended.

Since last time:
Surrogates. A perfectly decent scifi thriller starting both young Bruce Willis and old Bruce Willis through a mostly effective special effects twist. The plot itself was more dense than I'd expected it to be, though I wish the concept of surrogates had been more coherently fleshed out. Something like 99 percent of the world's population uses surrogates, but they never explained how the millions of poor in countries like India and Pakistan could afford them. Even considering the economies of scale at play with such massive market penetration, I can't imagine the interface chair and robot are THAT cheap. How do surrogate users keep their muscles from atrophying? Getting up every couple hours to take a piss or grab something out of the fridge doesn't cut it. Under what grounds would anyone have standing to bring a case before the SCOTUS about surrogate use? I will say that the theater, located on the outskirts of Plattsburgh, was surprisingly modern and comfortable. Easily the nicest North Country multiplex I've been to.

Next Day Air. My old roommate and I used to be huge "Scrubs" fans and wanted to see this because of Donald Faison. We never got around to it, so I finally decided to Redbox it last night. A fun comedy of errors (a package delivered to 302 instead of 203 sets off all sorts of problems) that is a little bit too self-conciously "urban." A very solid cast, including Debbie Allen in a fun cameo as the mother of Faison's character. Worth the $1.08.

Watched one of the best films of the year last night, Pixar's 'Up'. IMO the one sure bet at next years Oscars. Ten films, ten hits, seems like Pixar can do no wrong.

2008's 'Wall-E' bored me a bit though I did enjoy some of the shipboard shenanigans, the robots left me cold. 'Up' caught my attention from the start and didn't let go till the finish, a sad, funny, thrilling adventure. The best Pixar movie since 'The Incredibles'. 5 out of 5.

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.

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.

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.