Top 5 Films of 2009 So Far

Its about the halfway point so I thought I would share my top 5 films of the year so far. So check them out either in the theatre or on DVD. 

1. Adventureland

2. The Hurt Locker

3. 500 Days of Summer

4. Revanche (technically 2008 but I saw it in the theaters 2009)

5. UP

(500) Days of Summer (Summer is a girl)

(500) Days of Summer (2009) didn't steer away from the typical "indie" film moments but they made those moments work, it had its quirk but it didn't throw it in your face, and I applaud it for that (especially after Away We Go).  This story is about love and all that comes with it, both good and bad. It is a story about failed expectations, and about coming to terms with oneself after those expectations have fallen apart. This is an indi-romantic comedy that steers very closely to the truth and in the end that is where this movie really works.

Joseph Gordon Levitt plays the likable and naive Tom who falls hard for Zoey Deschanel's Summer. Tom believes in love, Summer doesn't, Tom thinks he can win her over, but we find out early on that its not going to happen. We know this information because the film is not narrative and plays around with the timeline using an effective ticker method jumping from one day of their relationship to another. 

Not only does the film feel true, it is very funny (funnier than The Hangover). Much of the humor has to do with the great performances from both Levitt and Deschanel. I am an unabashed Joseph Gordon Levitt fan, and he did not disappoint in this film. Both actors did a lot with dialogue that sometimes felt forced and contrived. 

Marc Webb's as the first time director made the movie he wanted to make, now I could argue someone else could have done better with the material, but having Webb work his own screenplay gave for  a great split screen scene and an amazing soundtrack (if this movie catches on think Garden State numbers on the soundtrack). I look forward to seeing what Webb has coming in the future. 

The movie wasn't without its shortcomings and unfortunately they did detract from the overall quality of the film, which is really disappointing because the movie was its faults away from being great. Tom's confidant and expert on women was his little sister, she biked to his apartment or he visited her on the soccer field and they had many heart to hearts. I didn't object to this concept but the dialogue between them was contrived and dabbled into exposition.  Another scene that was heavy on the exposition was when Tom confronts his coworkers at his greeting card company, both the job and speech worked a little to conveniently and felt forced. I also wish his friends worked on more levels than just a bouncing board for both Tom and the audience to compare. 

Overall (500) Days of Summer is highly entertaining, funny, and a great statement on love, relationships and life. Another few drafts of the screenplay and a more experienced director and this would have been my favorite film of the year.

***1/2

The Hurt Locker (I don't get the title)

If Alfred Hitchcock were to do a war movie it would be along the same lines as The Hurt Locker (2009). A movie who’s suspense and tension comes from the job of its characters.   We watch as these soldiers diffuse the road side bombs of the Iraq War, and in a war where the news constantly reports IED’s going off and killing American soldiers, their job is essential.

Kathryn Bigelow throws us right into the action from the beginning and rarely lets us go. There is more tension in 3 minutes of this film than in most action movies of the past five years. It is very specific to the Iraq war but it is not political. It is about men doing their job and coping with the sheer brutality of what their job entails especially if it goes wrong.  And many times it does go wrong. I would rank The Hurt Locker along with Paul Haggis’s In The Valley of Elah as the best fictional Iraq War movie.

The film concentrates on the unbalanced relationship between three soldiers. The team leader of the crew is played by Jeremy Renner. Renner has never before been an actor on my radar but I will be a big proponent of him moving forward and (if I had any say) push for him to get an Oscar nomination for his performance in this film.  Renner’s character William James is a adrenaline junkie that by all accounts loves what he does, but in his need for an adrenaline fix he puts his soldiers in danger. However he is more than likeable and relatable, he plays the character cool, but with a tortured soul.  Self pity mixed with a sense of duty can be a clichéd road to go down for an actor but Renner manages it beautifully.

Despite my glowing praise for this film, it does have its downfalls as inevitably most all movies do.  The first three fourths were near perfect, but the last quarter suffered from the fact that there wasn’t a more solid through line other than James being an adrenaline junkie. The few long-winded conversations ended up feeling like they were there to add layers that weren’t necessarily needed.  And despite Bigelow’s great direction and skillful management of the material (a sniper scene about halfway through the film could be a college course in building tension while developing character) I wondered why Bigelow decided to go back and forth between gritty video for the indoor/character development scenes and great film cinematography for the bomb scenes. To be honest if she had filmed this whole movie more deliberately and stylistically rather than handheld and on the run, I could guarantee this would be a best picture nominee (it still may be now that the field of best picture noms are at ten). Despite my few qualm’s about the film, I can certainly see this ranking on my top ten of the year.

If you are looking for a real action movie that hits all the right notes Kathryn Bigelow’s The Hurt Locker is a film to see.

 

****

The Beauty of Badlands

Much has been made of Terrance Malicks directorial debut Badlands (1973) over the years, and I am not going to claim to have anything new to bring to the table but it will do me good to try and articulate just how I felt about this masterpiece. Yes masterpiece, you can check this blog to see if that word has been used yet and you won't find it. So with that set up you have an idea of where this review is going.

What is our purpose on earth?Are we only as valuable as we are in our own minds or in the minds of others? Celebrity, fame, human life, what are they worth? These are some of the questions that Badlands deals with. The movie surrounds Kit a garbage worker who looks like James Dean and Holly a 15 year old girl who Kit takes a liking too after he sees her whirling a baton in the front yard. This innocent meeting starts our story and ends after a half dozen murders. Apparently the script was based on the true story of a young couple who killed 12 people in the South Dakota area in 1958, but the based on a true story aspect of this film is hardly relevant. This is its own tale.

There is nothing about Kit that is particularly charming or likable. His dialogue is sparse and often very humorous. Many times he points out the obvious yet acts like he is a philosopher. He has no rhyme, reason or purpose behind any of his acts, other than to leave a mark on this world. At one point early in the film he suggests that he and Holly smash there hands with a rock so that they never forget that moment. Holly says that would hurt, "thats the point stupid" he replies.

Kit never seems like a killer, despite being "the most trigger happy person I've ever known" according to Holly. When he does kill he is just doing, the movie is a bystander just watching. Badlands is the perfect example of filmmaking in the raw. Malick trusts his story and just presents it as is. Yes there are beautiful shots of nature and sunrises, all marks of a director and his future work, but they don't seem contrived or forced on us because there is nothing else to show, they are the everlasting juxtaposition to Kit and Holly's fleeting moment on earth.

The performances by Sheen and Spacek deserve to be ranked with that of De Niro and Foster in Taxi Driver, or even higher. Despite Sheens world renowned fame he is an underrated actor, he is not mentioned with the Hoffmans, De Niros or the 70's, yet between Badlands and Apocalypse Now you are looking at the equivalent of Taxi Driver and Raging Bull performance wise.

It must also be mentioned that the methodic carnival like score in Badlands is one of my favorite of all time. It is a masterful piece of music that I could listen to all day mixed with Spacek's perfect narration. Also it must be noted that Malick uses pop music perfectly in this film and does not get the credit he deserves for doing this.

Badlands is a film that is progressive even if it were released today. It is the Pulp Fiction of the seventies, it has the dialogue, direction and entertaining yet morally corrupt characters that audiences were not used to. Maybe that word Masterpiece is not enough, Malick made a benchmark film that has stood the test of time, and he deserves to be my first five star review.

*****

Men, Munich and Morals

They claim Steven Spielbergs Munich was shot, assembled and ready for the theaters in 6 months. If that is true that is quit an accomplishment for a film that is so dense that even on my second viewing I felt as though I was still missing stuff. 

The film is about the aftermath of the "Black September" or Munich Olympic murders in 1972. It stars Eric Bana as Avner, the Jewish/German son of a military hero, who feels he needs to follow in his fathers footsteps and serve Israel.  The basics of the plot are simple; kill those men responsible for the Munich murders. A team is assembled under Avner and they begin their duties. 

There are strokes of brilliance throughout this film, and if you need a reminder after the last Indian Jones as to just how talented Spielberg can be, rent this movie. 

The men assembled to pull off this incredible task are not professionals by any means, in fact I don't think any had killed before taking on these duties. Spielberg gives us one wonderful scene after another as these men complete there missions but do it in a far from elegant manner. And in there incompetence Spilberg is able to craft these wonderfully suspenseful moments. One in particular involves a bomb a telephone and a little girl (I had seen the film before, I knew how the scene would play out, yet I was practically yelling at the TV). 

The politics and rhetoric between characters as they are trying to tell us and themselves why they are doing what they are doing, bogs down the film. We don't really sympathize with the gang, but we shouldn't and Spielberg knows that, the problem with not sympathizing with them is we don't care as much about what they are doing. This is a movie full of revenge type killings, normally that is exactly the kind of thing that will keep you glued to the screen, but in seeing this movie I understand why its easier to make the antagonist do something horrible to one persons family or effect their personal life catastrophically, because then we watch with more emotional intent as they get back at their enemies. In Munich due to the subject matter and what Spielberg (correctly) is trying to accomplish, there is a sense of distance from the acts of murder. Also, Spielberg lets us and at least one person in the gang, get to briefly interact with the victims before killing them. I applaud Spielberg for all of this, because it would have been so easy just to make there be good guys and bad guys and then the killings would have no ramifications. Where this film ventures into greatness is when it starts to deal with that idea of to what end does any of this accomplish. Avnet finds himself becoming paranoid and going crazy for not only what he did but also because now he and his gang are becoming the victims. When does the cycle end!? I wish this aspect of the film had been explored more and started earlier, it was much more fascinating that listening to conversations about these moral implications. 

I could go on and on about how Spielberg superbly deals with issues of family, murder, loyalty, and especially the idea of having a home, a place to call your own. What price is any of that worth? Is it worth everything? Who decides in what order? 

As much deserving praise as I will heap on Spielberg for his technical savvy (this flm was beautifully shot, with a constant moving camera, zooms, it was basically shot like a 70's new hollywood film) and his amazing craftsmanship, there are a couple places where this movie keeps itself from being great. I couldn't always follow who are why certain people or things where happening. I don't understand the gangs source and how he knows all he knows, and some of the politics got heavy and confusing.  As I alluded to earlier the revenge is based on the Munich Olympic killings, in which none of the men involved with getting this retribution actually saw the Munich killings occur, yet Avner keeps seeing the events of that fateful night to personalize it. I didn't buy this, and I certainly could have done without the Eric Bana sex scene as he is seeing the killings and the cutting back and forth as Bana is getting more and more angry. Spielberg didn't need to personalize the event, and I wish he hadn't of tried. 

Those were all minor things, the biggest problem I had with the film was the last scene. And if Spielberg has his faults (which he does) they can be epitomized in the scene between Bana and Geofrrey Rush as they walk along the water in New York, summing up everything that we learned or were suppose to learn in the film. Spielberg needs to give his audiences more credit, he gives us a complex suspenseful thriller and then in the last three minutes has to explain the moral dilemmas that were there the whole time. Why?

This review doesn't scratch the surface of everything I would like to say about this movie, but it is getting long and I must wrap it up. To sum it up this film is like a smoothie, it has everything mixed into it, but when you turn the blender on the top pops off and you may lose some of it because you tried to pack to much.

****

Like Communism the film was at least a good concept

Warren Beattys Reds (1981) is an ambitious epic based on a period of John Reed's life. Reed was an American Socialist, who fought hard for the Socialist cause during and after WW1. If this sounds like someone you wouldn't want to spend three and half hours of you're life discovering then your partly right. The politics of this movie bored me to death, and unfortunately to much time is spent on the politics, and it isn't the fact that is was Communism, Socialism or any other political agenda that has negative connotation, it was just that it wasn't interesting. 

As long and drawn out as the political scenes were, they were the only negative aspect of this film, and its unfortunate because everything else about this movie was great. You can tell that this was a passion project for Beatty (wish he had been passionate about a different topic) who went on to win the Best Director Academy Award for his work behind the camera. As deserving as his praise for his direction was I think just as much should be made about his performance. As I had mentioned the politics of this film were not relatable but Beatty as Reed was charming, funny and human. He could have played this too serious, and made the mans life solely about the "cause" but thankfully Beatty is smarter than that and rescues the film from itself. 

In fact all the performances across the board were great, especially Diane Keaton as the on again, off again Mrs. Reed. I never had full appreciation for Keaton until I saw this film, and now I consider her one of the greats. Like Beatty she plays this character as three dimensional, and makes you understand and sympathize for her as she deals with balancing her socialistic and free love ideals with her emotions and we see the disconnect between the two aspects of her life portrayed perfectly. 

This film has beautiful cinematography by Vittorio Storaro (who deservingly won the Academy Award) and the film takes us through revolutions, wars and jail cells in Russia. It gives us a love triangle with the third party played by a even more creepy than normal Jack Nicholson. It gives us a genuine love story between Keaton and Beatty. Reds gives us everything a sweeping epic should, but it gets caught up in its own historic self importance and I think misinterprets audience reaction to this mans significance. Beatty doesn't try and preach anything in this movie, he may just be trying to hard to put everything into the film. If Beatty had cut an hour of politics out of this movie you would be reading a 5 star review. 

**1/2

I've been down a lot of corridors, none like this

Sam Fullers Shock Corridor (1963) seems to be an exercise in plot too theme ratio. It surrounds John Barrett a newspaper journalist out to grab the story of a lifetime, and while at it snag the Pulitzer prize. To garner the story and the accolades he decides to research and rehearse becoming an imbalanced sexual deviant who has inappropriate feelings towards his sister (who is really his girlfriend) and with that gets himself committed to a mental facility in which a murder had been committed, yet remains unsolved. Barrett idea is to solve the murder, write the story and what seems like a foregone conclusion to him, win the pulitzer prize. The logic of the plot may seem a bit out there, but to be perfectly honest, if I read in todays paper that a report went undercover at a mental hospital to write a story, I wouldn't think twice about it. 

Incest, racism, communism, nuclear war, sanity, insanity are all the themes Fuller is looking to explore in this picture. I applaud his effort, despite it falling short.  I shouldn't say it fell short in what Fuller was trying to accomplish, but where it fell short is cinematically, as a self contained movie without being conscious of the thematic elements. It seems like Fuller built the movie around his social and political agendas rather than the story itself. For example, fuller wants to deal with incest and sexuality, have Barrett girlfriend be a stripper (check it off the list), he wants to deal with racism, (have one of the witness's be a black white supremacist (check it off the list) have another witness be a communist (check it off the list) have another witness be a brilliant scientist who worked on the Atomic bomb (check it off the list). The biggest theme is sanity vs insanity, have the sane man deal with losing his own sanity (check it off the list). I feel like Fuller would have served himself and his agendas better if he had concentrated on the murder mystery aspect of the film and had Barrett actually try to discover how that went down by doing more than just asking each convenient witness who killed him, in there brief moments of sanity. If he had gone that route he could have more naturally interwoven his themes into the plot, without the film feeling a bit preachy. 

Despite that one major issue I had with the film, I respect Fuller for attempting to delve deeper into a film than most, and still keeping it entertaining throughout. Fuller also knows how to cast with great performances by Peter Breck as Barrett, Constance Towers as Cathy, James Best as Stuart, and the very enjoyable Larry Tucker as Pagliacci. 

Shock Corridor may be the first Fuller movie I have seen, but it certainly won't be my last because if he is able to hit the right balance between story and themes in his other works, that is when a film reaches the level of greatness. 

**1/2

The public wasn't to concerned with these enemies

The whole is only as good as the sum of its parts, or at least that is suppose to be the case. In Michael Mann's Public Enemies (2009) it seems the opposite might be true; the sum of its parts are better than the whole. There were some great individual sequences in this movie that I could analyze and watch again and again but the complete film was lacking a clear direction and story.

Lets start with what Michael Mann gets right and it is what he always gets right, the shootouts. He is the master of realistic, suspenseful gun play. His gritty digital look (we will get back to this) and sound, work well to evoke the chaos, and testosterone involved in these spectacles. Again some of these scenes immediately made me want re-watch them, then rob a bank in the 1930's. I want to make it clear that these shootout/escape scenes are not just good for there thrills but Mann turns them into a work of art by crafting realism and suspense. Mann book-ends these scenes by getting his camera in close and concentrates on these great shots of eyes and faces. One great scene akin to this is in the beginning as Dillinger holds a comrade from a moving car as he slowly dies, the camera is so intimate we feel like we are the ones holding on for dear life.

The casting of Johnny Depp was another good decision by Mann. He is the only reason we wanted to root for Dillinger. Without Depp I would have been totally lost as to why I care about what's going on in this character, because the film nor the writing doesn't offer any real insight into who Dillinger was as a person.

I can sum up where the movie went wrong pretty simply; I wasn't invested in the story. I appreciate Mann's attempts to give us no exposition and just throw us into the life of John Dillinger but it had no focus and seemed to be caught between characters and tone. As I mentioned earlier his digital gritty camera worked well for the action scenes but it also provoked a sense of coldness or distance from the characters and story. It served one aspect well but the more important aspect (story) was hurt by it. This was also due to the indecisiveness of tone, Mann couldn't decide if he wanted a gritty 30's gangster movie, or a polished Hollywood Gangster Picture, as evident by the displaced swelling score and love story. Also, the film went back and forth between Dillinger and Pervis (played with difficulty by Bale) and at one point seemed to totally shift our perspective of who we are suppose to be routing for. Let me point out that I don't think Mann ever really wanted us to care for one character more than another, he was just trying to show us two men that are good at there chosen professions and how the story played out between them. He did this with much more success in Collateral (my favorite Michael Mann film), with a clear protagonist and antagonist.

If Mann had just been able to cut the running time down and decide his tone or mood, the movie has its great moments and would have been much more relatable. Despite its flaws I already have a desire to watch it again, and that is how you know you are in the hands of a good filmmaker.

***