2009 Film List (Reviews, Discussion & Tracking) - Page 4

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.

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.

I miss Michael's contributions, too

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.

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.

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.

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.