2009 Film Retrospectaganza

I went to a @#$%ing lot of movies this year.  Apparently 30 trips to ye olde cineplex–well, 31, since I saw Avatar twice–and there’s a very real possibility I’m forgetting something.  Like that Boston Jewish Film Festival screening of Room and a Half, surrounded by elderly people speaking Russian.  So 32.

I’d like to wait till I see Crazy Heart and Youth in Revolt before offering my year end retrospective (though I’m not such a completist that I can’t let Sherlock Holmes keep till Netflix release), but Crazy Heart’s not in Boston yet, Youth in Revolt hasn’t opened anywhere, and since I’m hitting Vegas and the Left Coast next week, an ’09 retrospective in February 2010 is pathetic even by my now habitually low posting standards.

I can’t rank these, but there are tiers of movies I liked more–or thought were simply better–than others, so that’s how I broke it down.  This is the best year for movies I can remember since 2000 (O Brother Where Art Thou?, Erin Brockovich, Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon, Requiem for a Dream), but I have to qualify that by noting that it’s also the first year I’ve gone to the movies regularly since ’03, and large chunks of 2004-2008 are under a gray fog which I’m happily leaving behind for the new decade.  In fact, it occurs to me 2007 was pretty great, but unlike ’00 most of what I saw that year I didn’t see in theatres, so maybe I’m letting nostalgia overcome sense.  At any rate, it’s a breath of fresh air after last year, which only offered 3 movies I loved (Wall-E, The Dark Knight, Rachel Getting Married) and disappointed on nearly every front otherwise (Slumdog Millionaire, The Reader, The Curious Case of Benjamin Button).

Don’t Ask Me to Choose Between My Children
Antichrist
Fantastic Mr. Fox
The Hurt Locker
A Serious Man

Ok, Antichrist.  Don’t see Antichrist.  Seriously, if you see only one talking fox movie this year, see the other one. I thought Antichrist was skillfully, artfully crafted, and was relentless and compelling in forcing its point of view onto the audience, and that’s exactly why most of the faux intellectuals, hipsters and typical Cambridge shitheads in my screening couldn’t handle it.  Look, there’s only two things you needed to know going into this movie, and for such a limited release, I don’t know how anyone could have heard of the movie at all and not heard these things: at some point a fox will talk (“Chaos reigns!”) and there’s genital mutilation. Does graphic–cross your legs and groan out load no matter your gender graphic–genital mutilation sound like something you want to see projected on screen?  No?  Then don’t fucking see this movie.

Sorry; I’m still bitter about the asshats in my theatre who laughed at the wrong moments and talked cause they were made too uncomfortable to shut the fuck up.  I could argue that any movie that affects you on such a visceral level deserves better than sophomoric snickers, but I don’t want to hear the Saw counterarguments, and I suspect that, for all their pseudo-intellectual ironic facial hair and thick framed glasses, it was simply too much for your average Cantabrigian poseur.

Also, since I moved back to Somerville, I’ve remembered how much I hate (and love to hate) Cambridge.

Anyway, Antichrist was a powerful film that succeeded in crawling right under your skin in its presentation of nature as a malevolent force, and is quite possibly the most misogynistic movie I’ve ever seen.  I’ve read some criticism that gives von Trier a pass on this, saying that this film emanates hate for all people equally, including the audience, and I think there’s certainly basis for that, but I wouldn’t give it a pass for being misogynistic.  The thing is, the whole enterprise is a kind of horrific fantasy, so the misogyny isn’t presented as truth, it’s… Usually I don’t come down on this side of the fence, but in this case you recognize it as having a misogynistic point of view, without confusing that for the artists’ point of view, or feeling as though it’s a point of view the film wants you to take with you.  There isn’t really a demon or a witch dormant inside every woman, just waiting to manifest herself in violence and horror, and while that idea is posited in the film, I don’t think it’s necessarily posited by the film.  If that makes sense.

But I’d prefer if you don’t see Antichrist, cause I don’t want to be accountable for bringing it to your attention. I take no responsibility for you hating it and violently disagreeing with me including it with the other top films of the year. In fact, I couldn’t even say that I liked Antichrist, but I really do think it’s among the best movies I’ve seen in a while.

First Runners Up
Coraline
District 9
Moon
A Single Man

It was a great year for imagination and ambition in film, and my runners up, along with Avatar, are timely reminders in the face of the Twilight juggernaut that there are still artists in Hollywood, filmmakers looking to make bold choices, take chances, and present beautiful stories.  District 9 and Moon are the type of sci fi films that we genre fans need more of. On completely different scales–one a  30 million dollar special effects feast for the eyes, the other a scaled down, one guy (kind of…) in a single room atmospheric thought piece–these films were audacious in both presentation and in their desire to make us think.

Of all the films listed here, Moon is the one I think you most need to see.  Featuring the best score of the year from Clint Mansell, whom you’ll remember from Requiem for a Dream–just a beautiful score on its own, it also enhanced the film and fused with the storytelling the way the best movie music should–and one hell of a performance by Sam Rockwell.  If his isn’t the best performance of the year, that’s only thanks to…

A Single Man. As gorgeous a film as you’ll find, and though its story is small and simple, Colin Firth gives the performance of the year to extract every ounce of gravity and feeling from it.

Second Runners Up
Avatar
The Brothers Bloom
Humpday
In the Loop
It Might Get Loud
Red Cliff
Star Trek
Up
Where the Wild Things Are

Avatar’s story isn’t as bad as you’ve heard.  It’s by the numbers stuff, but not inappropriate for this type of movie, and not so offensive as the “FernGully in space” backlash would have you believe.  It’s a throwback script, one that I don’t think would have been so maligned 15 years ago (when it was reportedly written), which I take less as a fault in the script, and more as a hopeful indicator of how much more discerning we are as moviegoers.  The characters as written are fairly flat, sure, but that’s what Zoe Saldana, Stephen Lang and Giovanni Ribisi are for, and I’d argue that the plot is character driven, which might not sound like much, but counts for quite a lot.  How many of the other highest grossing films of ’09 were character driven stories?

While the visuals finally deliver on all the promises technology hasn’t kept till now, the film succeeds on the backs of the actors.  Saldana in particular gives an amazing performance, and this may finally be the film that makes us question where the line is drawn between an actor in a motion capture suit, and the thousands of man and processor hours that bring a CG character to life on screen.  Saldana’s vocal work was amazing, and I’m sure they motion captured her down to the nth detail, but Neytiri has over-sized eyes.  With so much of a performance coming from the eyes, I’m unsure how much credit belongs with the graphics technicians.  And I’m hardly a James Cameron fanboy, but he deserves a hell of a lot of credit for putting strong female protagonists at the centers of his films, and for finding the right actresses to play them.

Sam Worthington is a stickier case.  I found him sort of… off at times in the flesh, but he had a dynamic, easy charisma in his avatar form, again suggesting that the day when we award thirty nerds at Weta with a performance Oscar may not be so far off.  While Worthington wasn’t enough to buoy Terminator: Salvation, he was the best thing in that movie, and came a lot closer to saving it than it deserved.  I’m generally sour on the Clash of the Titans remake based on what I’ve seen, but Worthington’s brought me back around to being cautiously optimistic that it won’t shit all over one of my childhood favorites.

Humpday was funny and honest and true, and a fine example of indie filmmaking at its best, providing genuine, breathing, relatable characters in place of big budget wows.

I love a good Chinese historical epic, and John Woo’s Red Cliff is one.  There’s just something about the vast landscapes, epic action set pieces, and stylized Chinese performances that make me enjoy films in this genre.  It’s not in the same league as The Emperor and the Assassin, or Hero, but it’s close enough.

I can’t place Up (not to be confused with Up!) any higher when it’s not even among my favorite Pixar films (it falls behind The Incredibles, Wall-E and Finding Nemo), and honestly, the story and action are kind of a mess.  You don’t notice or care because you’re enjoying it so much, but if you stop to think, the same movie that offered the heartrending opening 10 minute montage that no one could stop talking about transformed into a madcap, almost psychadelic adventure with a 9 foot technicolor bird, talking dogs, and chases through Arthur Conan Doyle’s version of South America.  Wait, what?  That said, “I was hiding under your porch because I love you” is easily my favorite line of the year, if not the decade, and perhaps ever.

I think our opinions of Where the Wild Things Are depend on our experiences with the book, which are entirely individual.  It was a pitch perfect representation of the themes I remembered and love from the book, which is a monumental achievement, and I was floored by James Gandolfini’s voice work as Carol, but when I was making up this list I forgot all about Wild Things, so I couldn’t in good conscience place it higher, even though higher placement is probably deserved.

Honorable Mention
Broken Embraces
Inglourious Basterds
Up in the Air

Look, I just don’t like Quentin Tarantino.  I can appreciate Inglourious Basterds as a well-made film, but I just can’t bring myself actually to enjoy it.  And given that it’s a complete departure from history, I was left asking “Why?”  Why did this film need to be made?  In the end, why am I supposed to care about any of it?  And that pretty much sums up my opinion of Tarantino’s entire oeuvre besides Jackie Brown and fine, Pulp Fiction.  If it’s just an exercise in filmmaking, great, but why is it that Tarantino’s evidently incapable of investing any soul in his work?

I liked Up in the Air a lot, but I agreed with the points made in this review.  Vera Farmiga was incredible, perhaps too good, as [SPOILER] the last act twist with her character comes as an unjustified gut punch.

Miss Congeniality
Duplicity
The Informant!
Whip It

Duplicity was smart, but I didn’t find it that smart; I’d be happy if all the props its screenplay is getting went to The Brothers Bloom, (which I probably placed higher than it deserves simply because of residual goodwill for Brick, which you should stop what you’re doing and move to the top of your Netflix queue right now) which was just as clever, but better.

I agree with Joe R’s brilliant idea that Whip It would have been better served as a cable series. There’s a fullness and color to the setting and characters that would be well served by further exploration, which at the same time left the movie feeling slightly unfulfilled by the end.  And what the hell were Drew Barrymore and Juliette Lewis on when they filmed? It seemed like they wanted to relish their roles as the elder stateswomen of the ensemble by ravenously chewing the scenery–like late period Pacino or De Niro slumming it–but they came off as erratic and unhinged, and out of step with the rest of the film.

Failures
9
An Education
Extract
The Hangover
Paranormal Activity
Public Enemies
The Road
Watchmen
Zombieland

These are, for the most part, fine, decent movies.  You’re not going to hate yourself for wasting time with them, but they’re all failures and disappointments in some way.  I don’t recommend them, and consider yourself warned if you pursue them.

9 reminds me of an anime film. Intriguing concept, appealing, inventive visuals, but the metaphysical, pseudo-philosophical mess that it wants to present as a theme is so sloppy, amorphous and vague that it leaves a hole in the center of the story that’s too big for the film to overcome.  It could have rocked; it’s too bad it didn’t.

I think you have to be past a certain age to appreciate An Education because wow do I not get what all the raves are about. To me this was just a movie about a girl who’s not nearly so smart as she thinks she is making stupid decisions because she’s young.  Certainly it hits all the right notes for that, and that’s not a problem in and off itself, but the question again is “So who cares?”

I also object to Carey Mulligan.  She gives a good performance, and is very nearly believable as a 17 year old, but it’s the “very nearly” part that proved too problematic for me. Peter Sarsgaard gives a characteristically subtle and grounded performance that neither alienates you from the character, nor lets you forget that he’s basically a statutory rapist, but it’s squandered by Mulligan not quite looking 17.  Look, I’m 30 years old.  Carey Mulligan is 24 years old.  I see her on screen in the sex scene with Sargaard and I’m like, “Well, this is pretty gross, but I’d probably hit it, too,” and that’s a problem.  She needs to actually look 17, better yet be 17, to reinforce the wrongness of what’s happening.  The cognitive dissonance, of knowing the actress playing the girl is a grown woman, is too much to overcome because she looks fully grown. I think a more age appropriate actress–and again, props where props are due to Mulligan for selling it as well as she did–was necessary to appropriately set the stakes on the protagonist’s relationships and where she is in her world.

A number of people told me The Hangover is hilarious.  These people all happen to be women. I didn’t find The Hangover that hilarious.  Perhaps because I have been to a bachelor party.

I’d like to give Paranormal Activity an honorable mention, and include it with District 9 and Avatar, for being ambitious and giving us something fresh and new.  But the fact is it’s just not scary.  Sorry, it’s not. If you’re seeing it with a girl cause you’re hoping you’ll get some action afterward cause she’ll be too scared to sleep alone (And I’m not saying I was; I don’t need a scary movie to get some, just 10-12 hours a week in the gym.  Booyea–hey wait a minute, that’s not as good a trade at all!), don’t count on it.  However, I think fans of the horror genre, of which I am ignorant, can probably appreciate this film better than I did, for where it fits within the genre, and what (if anything) it does to transform it.  Also, the DVD commercial totally blows up the scariest 30 seconds of the movie.

I don’t know why you’d make a film version of The Road if you didn’t want to–and think you’re capable of–capture the spirit and theme of the novel.  There’s not a lot in the book that leaves you thinking it would be a great story to see on screen, not much to the book at all besides the inexorable, overwhelming, nearly unbearable sense of impending doom and crushing inevitability.  So if you’re not looking to recreate that, why bother?  The mise en scene was pretty close to spot on–except for one short, entirely inexplicable and unforgivable scene where the sky featured a blue hue suggesting the sun might someday rise–except it didn’t capture the sense of constant cold, and the mortal jeopardy that came with it.  In general, there just wasn’t enough palpable terror to the journey, though Viggo Mortensen and Kodi Smit-McPhee pretty much nail their roles, Mortensen acting with the type of complete commitment we’ve come to expect from him.

But don’t take my word for it: 3 people walked out of the theatre when I was seeing it.

And as I noted on twitter, “As much as I like seeing Michael K. Williams employed, only one motherfucking black man in The Road and he gotta be the thief?“

Zack Snyder managed to deliver a fetishistically true adaptation of Watchmen, and yet didn’t deliver a good movie.  It’s a catch-22:  Snyder’s lack of artistic vision of his own allowed him to remain so dedicated to the source material, yet it’s that lack of artistry that weighed so heavily on and doomed Watchmen.

Zombieland was very good, I just didn’t laugh as much as I wanted to.  The trailer was funnier than the movie.

Bad, but Not as Bad as You Heard
Terminator: Salvation

Yeah, That Bad
X-Men Origins: Wolverine

Satan Needs a Fourth Head: Brutus, Cassius and Judas Iscariot Have Company in the Lowest Circle of Hell
The Twilight Saga: New Moon