2010: a movie retrospective
Here I go again. The list is extremely late, but who cares. :) I don't expect anyone to read these. It's for me. But read them if you care what I think.
Keep in mind that this post will continually change as I see more of last year's films.
Also keep in mind that these are my favorites, not "best of 2010." So keep your elitist opinions in check my friends. I often define a "favorite" by its re-watch value. There's more to it than that but that is the gist of it.
Also keep in mind that 2010, like 2009, was a relatively bad year for movies, though not a complete waste of time.
Anyway.
Top TEN:
1: Tron Legacy -- I never expected this to be a favorite when it was in development. It's a shameless reboot of a franchise I don't care anything about. Then the trailer came out. I thought it looked like a ton of fun and a welcome return to the cyberpunk genre I enjoy so much (Blade Runner, The Matrix etc). The film has a lot of stuff going for it: Jeff Bridges riding the wave of his latest career renaissance, complete with more than a few Lebowski references. Michael Sheen is outrageous as Zeus--here's hoping this isn't really the last word on this character. Sheen went the extra mile to make this character fun and memorable--further than most of his co-stars. The visuals were of course very good. Strangely, the 3D elements were rarely exploited well though. I remember thinking that this is the perfect franchise visually for making 3D fun, but this one kind of let that slip. It had other things on its mind than 3D it seems (imagine that). Then there is the true star of the film: Daft Punks majorly underrated musical score. I don't even like Daft Punk. At least I didn't use to like them. Now I kind of do. This score should have won the oscar--it's epic, unique, stand-alone in places, and created a grand emotional palette for the film which would have otherwise suffered but for the presence of this amazing music. Is the movie a classic? No unfortunately. The plot had a lot of potential which was passed by in favor of a faster pace (as slow as it was already, I understand that). It could have been a kind of idea film, but that wouldn't have been right for this audience--and just who is the audience for this movie anyway? Also, I was expecting much more discourse regarding the relationship between video games and their players psychologically. A missed opportunity. Oh well. Overall, this is the most fun I had at the theaters this year. I look forward to more sequels if they have the money for them.
2: The Social Network -- There isn't much to say that hasn't been said already. The film was passed by the oscars which is correct I think. David Fincher however, I suspect deserved some recognition for this mammoth undertaking. Who could have imagined that a movie about facebook could have such emotional and cultural resonance? After watching the film, I felt angry. I was angry that Mark Zuckerberg is apparently such a jerk and how dare our society allow for someone like him to become so financially successful. I know that the film takes factual liberties--but the overall personality of its main character is close enough to the true person from what I've heard. Anyway, why facebook? Why does our society love it so much? Why does the world love it so much? The movie doesn't really ask that question. Good. I think. Instead, it tells about friends betraying friends for reasons I couldn't relate to. That made me angry. I was angry because Eduardo (Andrew Garfield) is so nice in the movie and I couldn't stand it that he was so badly maligned by his friends. I was angry that there is such a huge party culture which has no value in society at all and yet so many people ascribe to it. I was also angry that there are people with lots of money for no good reason. Movies don't make me this angry very often. Anyway, the film is superbly made: the script is great, the casting is great, the cinematography is great. It's a great movie. But it makes me angry. One thing: Jesse Eisenberg plays Jesse Eisenberg in the movie--why did he get nominated? Why was he cast? I would have appreciated a more dynamic and interesting actor for Zuckerberg though Eisenberg is interesting in his own typecast way. Oh and Andrew Garfield? I'd like to see more movies with him please.
3: 127 Hours - I have a hard time seeing this film and not being moved. And I try so hard not to be moved! Why? Because I dislike it's principal character so much! He is much of what I dislike in people I meet: Type A personality, arrogant, impulsive, vain, immoral, well-rewarded for his efforts. And yet this is the person this horrific event happened to and if it was someone else, that other person may not have made it through. Of course, another person might not be stupid enough to get into this situation in the first place. This is about a larger-than life personality who ventures into the un-tame and unknown, and finds his true self there. But at what cost? I am reminded of another similar and true story: Chris McCandless' journey in the far superior film (and book) "Into The Wild." McCandless lost his life. Aaron Ralston lost less, but perhaps gained less as well. It's all speculation as I do not know the real-life Ralston personally (it goes without saying). But I know the character portrayed in the film "127 Hours" and I would question how much he truly learned from his experience. "Into The Wild" is an intense spiritual experience for me when I watch it, and "127 Hours," while it comes close at times, just falls short of the profound nature of "Into The Wild." I also have trouble dissociating this film from its actor: James Franco. I've enjoyed Franco in the past ("Pineapple Express") but I lost much respect for him after his incorrigible behavior at the 2011 Academy Awards ceremony. Inexcusable. All that aside, I have to say that I truly did enjoy the film itself (delicately crafted by the superb Danny Boyle) and I am quite moved by it when I see it. I think about myself and what I would do in that situation. I think about what I would sacrifice for the sake of other people and potential futures. The film takes you places. And it makes you thirsty.
4: The Book of Eli -- The movie has a lot going for it: Denzel Washington being wise and violent. Gary Oldman chewing up scenery. An old-west story set in the new west. And some lovely spiritual/sociological overtones in the film's story which create great conversations. The Book of Eli is not just an action film, but a strangely optimistic ideas film. Society does not die with the nations, rather it dies with its people. And in this film, society does not die, no matter how much people try to kill it. The best of humanity wins in spectacular fashion. Anyway. The film's action sequences are second to its ideas for once. The one exception being its opening action sequence under the overpass--a silhouetted Denzel Washington dispatches a group of appropriately nasty baddies with a huge kukri. One of these baddies has a chainsaw. Truly wonderful. I admit, the style of the film was not to my taste overall, but I forgive it. I would have preferred a glossier camera aesthetic to go along with the already gritty mise-en-scene. Anyway, I was not impressed with the trailer for the film so I didn't see it in the theater. It was only after trusted individuals recommended it that I went ahead and saw it. I'm so glad I did.
5: Never Let Me Go - It is hard to describe the experience of seeing this film. First, the big word here is "gentle." The movie has some heavy ideas and plays within established genres (sci-fi, period drama, school-film) but it is so subdued that it is arguably not even related to those genres. The sci-fi elements are a device for narrative and drama, not an excuse as they usually are. The film never shoves anything so much as it provides it, if that makes sense. Again, very gentle. The second thing that comes to mind is the look of it: absolutely top-notch. The cinematographer loves the shallow-focus and uses it well throughout (even if he comes close to over-doing it). The color palette is also interesting - lots of muted golds and browns. Very very conscious mise-en-scene. The story is the third thing I got into - right away, I was pulled into impending tragedy which is implied from the beginning and revealed very gently as the film progresses. The plot has holes in it to sure, but they're frankly irrelevant. The plot is an impetus for the drama and character development, not a high-concept story. Fourth, the casting of the principals was well-done. Cary Mulligan is perfect once again--how fortunate we are to have her gracing the screen again (I really enjoyed her in "An Education"). I saw Andrew Garfield in "The Imaginarium of Dr. Parnassus" and I thought that he was a strange but endearing performer. That perception holds true in this case as well. He's quirky and clearly operating in the moment which makes for an odd waif-ish kind of person in Tom. This characteristic carried over to his performance in "The Social Network" as well (which I saw some months after "Never Let Me Go"). Soon he will go on to play Spider-Man in an upcoming adaptation...it remains to be seen if that role is right for this endearing but monotonous actor. Kiera Knightly is not right for her role in "Never Let Me Go" perhaps, but she carries it through. As an actress, there are some ticks that Kiera just can't seem to shake. Of course she's beautiful. :) Many people ask the question: why didn't these characters flee? Try to change their fate? The answer is, whether they accept it or flee from it, their fate ultimately remains the same. The film's concluding remarks make it clear: we all share the same fate.
6: Robin Hood - From the beginning, "Robin Hood" was going to be haunted by comparisons with the great Ridley Scott/Russell Crowe film "Gladiator." I personally feel that such comparisons are justified as the elements which make up "Robin Hood" could have met "Gladiator" in terms of its narrative and aesthetic quality. While I enjoyed "Robin Hood" very much, I can never watch it without mourning the loss of what it could have been. First, there was the high-concept script which started the project but was abandoned some time during pre-production. All we knew was the film was to be called "Nottingham," it was being made by Ridley Scott, and Russell Crowe would be playing two characters in the film. Who were these two characters? Was Crowe playing twin brothers (the sheriff and Robin being brothers) or were the sheriff and Robin the same person? Speculation abounded and I greatly anticipated the resulting new take on Robin Hood. Sadly, Scott ditched that idea (whatever it was) claiming it was too complicated. They started at square one with the intention of setting up a new, but more traditional vision of the classic character. This is basically what happened with "Robin Hood." All the elements were there for a sure-fire hit: a great director, a great cast, and a great story. Sadly, somehow the film didn't piece these things together to make a great film--only a good one. What's wrong with it? Good question--but hard to answer. Primarily, I feel like I didn't either know or care about any of the characters by the end of the film (a great contrast to a film like "Gladiator")...aaaaannd the battle on the coast at the end of the film felt a little tagged-on and not overtly related to the rest of the film. Other than that...the film was a pleasure. Despite my grumblings, I actually do like "Robin Hood," but I do not love it. It looked nice, it sounded nice, it had a wonderful cast. It just wasn't special. It could have been. It should have been. I would love to see sequels to this film, but sadly, I don't think it's going to happen.
7: True Grit - I remember seeing the original film with John Wayne when I was a younger person, but like many westerns, it didn't leave a strong impression on me. This new adaptation of the novel by the same name has a flavor which I found quite welcoming. The elements are all present for a grand time at the movies: the at times bizarre taste of the Coen brothers, an inspired cast, wonderful nostalgic music, and a good script. The Coen brothers of course are true American treasures in the film community: rare examples of prolific artists who have relative free reign to do as they please and yet still maintain the loyalty of the audience (like Woody Allen for example). Jeff Bridges is in the middle of a renaissance in his career--riding on the wave of the Lebowski cult explosion and his oscar-win last year. Bridges' performance here is endearing and quality--as usual. Hailee Steinfeld is a wonderful discovery. Never once do I doubt this plucky little character. Matt Damon exists and is not awful (thank goodness). I'm sorry to all his fans out there, but I have an irrational dislike for Damon and I rarely enjoy him in his films--even if the films themselves are enjoyable. But here...he's okay, but he could have been better. I remember reading that the Coen brothers were going to nourish the comic elements in the story and the film shows that they have--but they could have gone further perhaps. I did enjoy the scene with the physician in the bear skin--the most memorable moment for me. The music was another star of the film: beautiful, warm piano renditions of beloved hymns. At first I was puzzled by it all. The second time I saw it though, I started to understand that there is a spiritual undertone to the film's story which I haven't thoroughly explored. The score befits this angle. To be clear, I wasn't blown away by "True Grit" as I have been by other films by the Coen brothers ("O Brother Where Art Thou?," "The Big Lebowksi," "No Country For Old Men"). But one ought not to expect to be blown away by every film--especially when there is so much to enjoy in a film like "True Grit."
8: Inception-- This was probably the most talked about film of 2010. I can see why, but I frankly got very tired of hearing it compared to "The Matrix." I feel that the achievements of "Inception" do not compare with "The Matrix." They are both quality films with mind-bending subject matter. "The Matrix" bends the mind rhetorically, while "Inception" bends the mind formally. The films also have very different styles. I feel that "The Matrix" is a superior film for reasons which I won't go into here. That being said, "Inception" had its charms. It is a juggernaut heist-thriller with an all-star cast--the beautiful Marion Cotillard stands out the most with her disturbingly menacing performance. The very sight of her character in the film is filled with dread and ill-portent. This is the first film I have seen with Tom Hardy - and I can say that he was very enjoyable and I look forward to seeing more from him (Bane should be interesting). The film has an intriguing premise and screenplay - sometimes the suspense builds to such a crescendo it's almost unbearable. The now famous sequence with the shifting gravity (achieved with a spinning set) is absolutely jaw-dropping. What's not to like? "Inception"'s ending left me underwhelmed. I enjoy open endings ("A Serious Man," and "The Tree of Life" for example), but I don't appreciate them when they're mathematically precise in their ambiguity--to the extent where the film is designed so that no definitive answers can be arrived at. I like to think when I'm at the movies and discuss possibilities with others who have seen the same films, but I get bored with films which have no true underlying answers. Nolan's editing style is also very distracting--not everyone notices or cares, but almost every Nolan film I've seen has had what I consider to be sloppy and unpleasant editing. It's hard to define precisely how--abrupt changes and weird sound issues. I don't know. It's weird. The only Nolan film which doesn't feature this editing style is "Momento". That film is a grand achievement in editing--and screenwriting as well for that matter. That film remains Nolan's best film in my opinion.
9: The Illusionist -- Sylvain Chomet is such a relief. I am so glad filmmakers like him exist! "The Illusionist" is one of the most beautiful films I have seen in a long time. Like Comet's previous film "The Triplets of Bellville," "The Illusionist" is an emotionally heavy animated film from France which operates almost entirely without dialogue. The whole story is told through looks between characters, character design, and music. And yet it doesn't qualify as a silent film. There is a vibrant diegetic soundscape which brings the film to life. The film doesn't have a strong narrative drive. Instead, it has a potent emotional palette and aesthetic richness which compels me to simply let down my guard and succumb to its beauty. Make no mistake, this film is deeply melancholic-- full of nostalgia, loneliness, and loss. And yet the film never loses its sense of humor or whimsy. I would have loved to see things turn out differently for the characters, but...that's okay. Really, it's okay. I still believe in magic.
10: Tangled -- This film operates entirely in conversation with the classic model of the Disney Princess film. However, it doesn't completely imitate that style either. The contemporary sense of humor (remeniscent of "The Emperor's New Groove" and "Horton Hears a Who") and trendy "cutesy" attitudes of the film's characters exist in concert with the gushy fairytale aesthetic. For once, the filmmakers try to "update" an old genre for once without compromising the original model. That being said, "Tangled" still has a very timely feel to it--I don't foresee it maintaining its cultural relevance the way Disney's other iconic princess films have. I wouldn't mind seeing a return of the studio's glory in the 90s. Anyway, the film itself has merit apart from its generic origins. It's quite funny, beautiful looking, and moving in some places. The story feels familiar and yet there are surprising turns throughout. It has lovely side characters and a complicated villain. "Tangled" also enjoys a slight cult following--it is endlessly quoted by college friends of mine. Altogether, "Tangled" is a lot of fun and we all feel pretty good by the end of it. What is more, I don't feel utterly used by the film's repetition of classic patterns. Well done Disney.
Honorable Mention (in no particular order):
The Town -- A tight thriller with an intriguing premise and a great cast. Ben Affleck is proving himself to be a solid director.
Winter's Bone -- A superb performance from Jennifer Lawrence (watch her closely, she'll be a rising star). It's a gangster movie set in the methlands of Appalachia. Truly absorbing.
Clash of the Titans -- I don't care what anyone says, this is a well constructed special-effects fantasy adventure. The characters are interesting and the action scenes are pretty fun. The film has a cool attitude and a wonderful look.
Predators -- Adrian Brody the action star? Yes. Yes absolutely. I am so ready for the AVP franchise to die so that Alien and Predator films can be made again. Here we have the first example of that. It's gritty, violent, and masculine. More please.
The Chronicles of Narnia: The Voyage of the Dawn Treader -- It gets props for trying, but it ultimately fails. The longest and the best of the books becomes the shortest and least of the films. It doesn't help that audiences don't care to see Narnia movies anymore, sadly. But fox/disney have terribly mismanaged the franchise. It could have gone on. On the plus side, the addition of Will Poulter to the cast is a welcome one, as is the presence of Simon Pegg as Reepicheep. The film is not without its moments, but if feels very rushed and the story is wasted potential.
The King's Speech -- Solid period movie with a great script and good performances from its top-notch British cast. Helena Bonham Carter as a normal person. She should do this more often.
Legend of the Guardians: The Owls of Ga'Hoole -- This film gets props for it's look. It's simply beautiful to look at. It comes close to establishing a lucrative franchise but the story itself betrays the series potential. Side note: the film's trailer is one of my favorites. 30 Seconds to Mars y'all.
You Will Meet a Tall Dark Stranger -- Woody Allen's films seem so singular in their style and unapologetic in their taste. Yet they always bear taking a look at because we all know from whom they originate--and I for one am always curious about the man himself. I feel like over time, watching Woody Allen's films grants one an insight in to the person. His films are, after all, always about himself in some way. :)
Ondine -- A beautiful Irish film with all the potential for greatness...but which turned out to be a good film. Had the film steered in a more supernatural direction, I think it would have been better.
The Karate Kid -- A handsomely made and refreshing remake of the original (a film I have almost zero relationship with). Jayden Smith is not as awful as I thought he would be, and Jackie Chan gets the chance to deviate from his typically clownish persona and allows us to take him seriously as an actor. Setting the film in China was a perfect decision.
Toy Story 3 -- This film was primarily a disappointment to me. I realize I am greatly outnumbered in this regard, and that's fine with me. I just didn't get the glow from this film that I got from many other Pixar films (including the great Toy Story 2). Best picture nomination? Nope, didn't deserve it. The reason this film appears here is there were a few moments which were comic gold such as the fabulous opening sequence -- a great visual representation of what is going on in our heads when we play with toys. Also, Michael Keaton as the Ken doll....yes.
Iron Man 2 -- for once a sequel shies away from the temptation to out-do the predecessor. Finally a sequel delivers simply, "more of the same." This is good because the predecessor was good. I would have liked to have more bad-guy in this one, but oh well. The film also features a fantastic martial-arts sequence with Scarlett Johanson-- a great surprise to me and the audience I saw the film with.
Death at a Funeral -- the American remake with Chris Rock shocked me by actually exceeding the serviceable British comedy it is based on. Who saw that coming? Casting Peter Dinklage again was a good decision.
Diary of a Wimpy Kid -- this film walked a tight line between awful kids movie and a really smart comedy about kids. It was laugh-out loud funny at moments and smiley chuckle at others. Primarily, I enjoyed the charismatic young actors who carry the film through. It remains to be seen whether the kids can maintain the charm in any inevitable sequels. I read the book this movie is based off of: it adapts the book surprisingly well and yet feels like its own thing. I was afraid the film would have difficulty adequately adapting the material as the book is unique in its bookness if you know what I mean.
How to Train Your Dragon -- Admittedly, this film was much more impressive the first time through than subsequent viewings. It was fresh, it had likable characters, and it was a feast to look at. The 3D did nothing to improve the film of course - a waste. I dread the inevitable sequels though.
The Wolfman -- I was really excited for this film: great cast, great look, and mostly practical creature-effects courtesy of make-up master Rick Baker. Unfortunately, the creature effects were not very interesting. I expected more from Benicio Del Toro in the mask I guess. Hugo Weaving was a welcome face though, and so was Anthony Hopkins (who dons the wolf himself--not a spoiler to anyone who watches trailers). Sadly missed was the option to view the film on DVD with its original industrial/electronica score which had been finished but abandoned in the 11th hour. Danny Elfman's score is more traditional and serves the film well however. Fun but forgetful.
Morning Glory -- A great cast, a great premise, and a great execution. Nearly all turn in great performances (on which the film is heavily dependent). The downside? Not enough Diane Keaton, and way too much Patrick Wilson. Wilson is a charmless actor. He shouldn't work so much. Ford reminds me a lot of my grandpa in this movie (haha). Overall, very funny, very satisfying movie.
The Tempest -- Oh, Julie Taymore, where did you go wrong? You had all of the pieces: great material, great cast, great costumes. Why was the movie not up to par? Who knows. She tries interesting things here - like mixing some of the verse of Shakespeare's play into music (i.e. it is sung). Also, Helen Mirren as "Prospera"? Great idea! Russell Brand (first movie I have seen him in) and Alfred Molina are wonderful. The costumes are fantastic (zipper-punk!). Ben Wishaw as Ariel was wasted potential -- wonderful visual feast, but his performance left me puzzled. Overall? Should have been one of the best films of the year. But it isn't.
The Fighter -- Christian Bale deserves the accolades for once. Great performance from him. Everyone else does a good job too. An entertaining drama which toys with tone expertly.
Keep in mind that this post will continually change as I see more of last year's films.
Also keep in mind that these are my favorites, not "best of 2010." So keep your elitist opinions in check my friends. I often define a "favorite" by its re-watch value. There's more to it than that but that is the gist of it.
Also keep in mind that 2010, like 2009, was a relatively bad year for movies, though not a complete waste of time.
Anyway.
Top TEN:
1: Tron Legacy -- I never expected this to be a favorite when it was in development. It's a shameless reboot of a franchise I don't care anything about. Then the trailer came out. I thought it looked like a ton of fun and a welcome return to the cyberpunk genre I enjoy so much (Blade Runner, The Matrix etc). The film has a lot of stuff going for it: Jeff Bridges riding the wave of his latest career renaissance, complete with more than a few Lebowski references. Michael Sheen is outrageous as Zeus--here's hoping this isn't really the last word on this character. Sheen went the extra mile to make this character fun and memorable--further than most of his co-stars. The visuals were of course very good. Strangely, the 3D elements were rarely exploited well though. I remember thinking that this is the perfect franchise visually for making 3D fun, but this one kind of let that slip. It had other things on its mind than 3D it seems (imagine that). Then there is the true star of the film: Daft Punks majorly underrated musical score. I don't even like Daft Punk. At least I didn't use to like them. Now I kind of do. This score should have won the oscar--it's epic, unique, stand-alone in places, and created a grand emotional palette for the film which would have otherwise suffered but for the presence of this amazing music. Is the movie a classic? No unfortunately. The plot had a lot of potential which was passed by in favor of a faster pace (as slow as it was already, I understand that). It could have been a kind of idea film, but that wouldn't have been right for this audience--and just who is the audience for this movie anyway? Also, I was expecting much more discourse regarding the relationship between video games and their players psychologically. A missed opportunity. Oh well. Overall, this is the most fun I had at the theaters this year. I look forward to more sequels if they have the money for them.
2: The Social Network -- There isn't much to say that hasn't been said already. The film was passed by the oscars which is correct I think. David Fincher however, I suspect deserved some recognition for this mammoth undertaking. Who could have imagined that a movie about facebook could have such emotional and cultural resonance? After watching the film, I felt angry. I was angry that Mark Zuckerberg is apparently such a jerk and how dare our society allow for someone like him to become so financially successful. I know that the film takes factual liberties--but the overall personality of its main character is close enough to the true person from what I've heard. Anyway, why facebook? Why does our society love it so much? Why does the world love it so much? The movie doesn't really ask that question. Good. I think. Instead, it tells about friends betraying friends for reasons I couldn't relate to. That made me angry. I was angry because Eduardo (Andrew Garfield) is so nice in the movie and I couldn't stand it that he was so badly maligned by his friends. I was angry that there is such a huge party culture which has no value in society at all and yet so many people ascribe to it. I was also angry that there are people with lots of money for no good reason. Movies don't make me this angry very often. Anyway, the film is superbly made: the script is great, the casting is great, the cinematography is great. It's a great movie. But it makes me angry. One thing: Jesse Eisenberg plays Jesse Eisenberg in the movie--why did he get nominated? Why was he cast? I would have appreciated a more dynamic and interesting actor for Zuckerberg though Eisenberg is interesting in his own typecast way. Oh and Andrew Garfield? I'd like to see more movies with him please.
3: 127 Hours - I have a hard time seeing this film and not being moved. And I try so hard not to be moved! Why? Because I dislike it's principal character so much! He is much of what I dislike in people I meet: Type A personality, arrogant, impulsive, vain, immoral, well-rewarded for his efforts. And yet this is the person this horrific event happened to and if it was someone else, that other person may not have made it through. Of course, another person might not be stupid enough to get into this situation in the first place. This is about a larger-than life personality who ventures into the un-tame and unknown, and finds his true self there. But at what cost? I am reminded of another similar and true story: Chris McCandless' journey in the far superior film (and book) "Into The Wild." McCandless lost his life. Aaron Ralston lost less, but perhaps gained less as well. It's all speculation as I do not know the real-life Ralston personally (it goes without saying). But I know the character portrayed in the film "127 Hours" and I would question how much he truly learned from his experience. "Into The Wild" is an intense spiritual experience for me when I watch it, and "127 Hours," while it comes close at times, just falls short of the profound nature of "Into The Wild." I also have trouble dissociating this film from its actor: James Franco. I've enjoyed Franco in the past ("Pineapple Express") but I lost much respect for him after his incorrigible behavior at the 2011 Academy Awards ceremony. Inexcusable. All that aside, I have to say that I truly did enjoy the film itself (delicately crafted by the superb Danny Boyle) and I am quite moved by it when I see it. I think about myself and what I would do in that situation. I think about what I would sacrifice for the sake of other people and potential futures. The film takes you places. And it makes you thirsty.
4: The Book of Eli -- The movie has a lot going for it: Denzel Washington being wise and violent. Gary Oldman chewing up scenery. An old-west story set in the new west. And some lovely spiritual/sociological overtones in the film's story which create great conversations. The Book of Eli is not just an action film, but a strangely optimistic ideas film. Society does not die with the nations, rather it dies with its people. And in this film, society does not die, no matter how much people try to kill it. The best of humanity wins in spectacular fashion. Anyway. The film's action sequences are second to its ideas for once. The one exception being its opening action sequence under the overpass--a silhouetted Denzel Washington dispatches a group of appropriately nasty baddies with a huge kukri. One of these baddies has a chainsaw. Truly wonderful. I admit, the style of the film was not to my taste overall, but I forgive it. I would have preferred a glossier camera aesthetic to go along with the already gritty mise-en-scene. Anyway, I was not impressed with the trailer for the film so I didn't see it in the theater. It was only after trusted individuals recommended it that I went ahead and saw it. I'm so glad I did.
5: Never Let Me Go - It is hard to describe the experience of seeing this film. First, the big word here is "gentle." The movie has some heavy ideas and plays within established genres (sci-fi, period drama, school-film) but it is so subdued that it is arguably not even related to those genres. The sci-fi elements are a device for narrative and drama, not an excuse as they usually are. The film never shoves anything so much as it provides it, if that makes sense. Again, very gentle. The second thing that comes to mind is the look of it: absolutely top-notch. The cinematographer loves the shallow-focus and uses it well throughout (even if he comes close to over-doing it). The color palette is also interesting - lots of muted golds and browns. Very very conscious mise-en-scene. The story is the third thing I got into - right away, I was pulled into impending tragedy which is implied from the beginning and revealed very gently as the film progresses. The plot has holes in it to sure, but they're frankly irrelevant. The plot is an impetus for the drama and character development, not a high-concept story. Fourth, the casting of the principals was well-done. Cary Mulligan is perfect once again--how fortunate we are to have her gracing the screen again (I really enjoyed her in "An Education"). I saw Andrew Garfield in "The Imaginarium of Dr. Parnassus" and I thought that he was a strange but endearing performer. That perception holds true in this case as well. He's quirky and clearly operating in the moment which makes for an odd waif-ish kind of person in Tom. This characteristic carried over to his performance in "The Social Network" as well (which I saw some months after "Never Let Me Go"). Soon he will go on to play Spider-Man in an upcoming adaptation...it remains to be seen if that role is right for this endearing but monotonous actor. Kiera Knightly is not right for her role in "Never Let Me Go" perhaps, but she carries it through. As an actress, there are some ticks that Kiera just can't seem to shake. Of course she's beautiful. :) Many people ask the question: why didn't these characters flee? Try to change their fate? The answer is, whether they accept it or flee from it, their fate ultimately remains the same. The film's concluding remarks make it clear: we all share the same fate.
6: Robin Hood - From the beginning, "Robin Hood" was going to be haunted by comparisons with the great Ridley Scott/Russell Crowe film "Gladiator." I personally feel that such comparisons are justified as the elements which make up "Robin Hood" could have met "Gladiator" in terms of its narrative and aesthetic quality. While I enjoyed "Robin Hood" very much, I can never watch it without mourning the loss of what it could have been. First, there was the high-concept script which started the project but was abandoned some time during pre-production. All we knew was the film was to be called "Nottingham," it was being made by Ridley Scott, and Russell Crowe would be playing two characters in the film. Who were these two characters? Was Crowe playing twin brothers (the sheriff and Robin being brothers) or were the sheriff and Robin the same person? Speculation abounded and I greatly anticipated the resulting new take on Robin Hood. Sadly, Scott ditched that idea (whatever it was) claiming it was too complicated. They started at square one with the intention of setting up a new, but more traditional vision of the classic character. This is basically what happened with "Robin Hood." All the elements were there for a sure-fire hit: a great director, a great cast, and a great story. Sadly, somehow the film didn't piece these things together to make a great film--only a good one. What's wrong with it? Good question--but hard to answer. Primarily, I feel like I didn't either know or care about any of the characters by the end of the film (a great contrast to a film like "Gladiator")...aaaaannd the battle on the coast at the end of the film felt a little tagged-on and not overtly related to the rest of the film. Other than that...the film was a pleasure. Despite my grumblings, I actually do like "Robin Hood," but I do not love it. It looked nice, it sounded nice, it had a wonderful cast. It just wasn't special. It could have been. It should have been. I would love to see sequels to this film, but sadly, I don't think it's going to happen.
7: True Grit - I remember seeing the original film with John Wayne when I was a younger person, but like many westerns, it didn't leave a strong impression on me. This new adaptation of the novel by the same name has a flavor which I found quite welcoming. The elements are all present for a grand time at the movies: the at times bizarre taste of the Coen brothers, an inspired cast, wonderful nostalgic music, and a good script. The Coen brothers of course are true American treasures in the film community: rare examples of prolific artists who have relative free reign to do as they please and yet still maintain the loyalty of the audience (like Woody Allen for example). Jeff Bridges is in the middle of a renaissance in his career--riding on the wave of the Lebowski cult explosion and his oscar-win last year. Bridges' performance here is endearing and quality--as usual. Hailee Steinfeld is a wonderful discovery. Never once do I doubt this plucky little character. Matt Damon exists and is not awful (thank goodness). I'm sorry to all his fans out there, but I have an irrational dislike for Damon and I rarely enjoy him in his films--even if the films themselves are enjoyable. But here...he's okay, but he could have been better. I remember reading that the Coen brothers were going to nourish the comic elements in the story and the film shows that they have--but they could have gone further perhaps. I did enjoy the scene with the physician in the bear skin--the most memorable moment for me. The music was another star of the film: beautiful, warm piano renditions of beloved hymns. At first I was puzzled by it all. The second time I saw it though, I started to understand that there is a spiritual undertone to the film's story which I haven't thoroughly explored. The score befits this angle. To be clear, I wasn't blown away by "True Grit" as I have been by other films by the Coen brothers ("O Brother Where Art Thou?," "The Big Lebowksi," "No Country For Old Men"). But one ought not to expect to be blown away by every film--especially when there is so much to enjoy in a film like "True Grit."
8: Inception-- This was probably the most talked about film of 2010. I can see why, but I frankly got very tired of hearing it compared to "The Matrix." I feel that the achievements of "Inception" do not compare with "The Matrix." They are both quality films with mind-bending subject matter. "The Matrix" bends the mind rhetorically, while "Inception" bends the mind formally. The films also have very different styles. I feel that "The Matrix" is a superior film for reasons which I won't go into here. That being said, "Inception" had its charms. It is a juggernaut heist-thriller with an all-star cast--the beautiful Marion Cotillard stands out the most with her disturbingly menacing performance. The very sight of her character in the film is filled with dread and ill-portent. This is the first film I have seen with Tom Hardy - and I can say that he was very enjoyable and I look forward to seeing more from him (Bane should be interesting). The film has an intriguing premise and screenplay - sometimes the suspense builds to such a crescendo it's almost unbearable. The now famous sequence with the shifting gravity (achieved with a spinning set) is absolutely jaw-dropping. What's not to like? "Inception"'s ending left me underwhelmed. I enjoy open endings ("A Serious Man," and "The Tree of Life" for example), but I don't appreciate them when they're mathematically precise in their ambiguity--to the extent where the film is designed so that no definitive answers can be arrived at. I like to think when I'm at the movies and discuss possibilities with others who have seen the same films, but I get bored with films which have no true underlying answers. Nolan's editing style is also very distracting--not everyone notices or cares, but almost every Nolan film I've seen has had what I consider to be sloppy and unpleasant editing. It's hard to define precisely how--abrupt changes and weird sound issues. I don't know. It's weird. The only Nolan film which doesn't feature this editing style is "Momento". That film is a grand achievement in editing--and screenwriting as well for that matter. That film remains Nolan's best film in my opinion.
9: The Illusionist -- Sylvain Chomet is such a relief. I am so glad filmmakers like him exist! "The Illusionist" is one of the most beautiful films I have seen in a long time. Like Comet's previous film "The Triplets of Bellville," "The Illusionist" is an emotionally heavy animated film from France which operates almost entirely without dialogue. The whole story is told through looks between characters, character design, and music. And yet it doesn't qualify as a silent film. There is a vibrant diegetic soundscape which brings the film to life. The film doesn't have a strong narrative drive. Instead, it has a potent emotional palette and aesthetic richness which compels me to simply let down my guard and succumb to its beauty. Make no mistake, this film is deeply melancholic-- full of nostalgia, loneliness, and loss. And yet the film never loses its sense of humor or whimsy. I would have loved to see things turn out differently for the characters, but...that's okay. Really, it's okay. I still believe in magic.
10: Tangled -- This film operates entirely in conversation with the classic model of the Disney Princess film. However, it doesn't completely imitate that style either. The contemporary sense of humor (remeniscent of "The Emperor's New Groove" and "Horton Hears a Who") and trendy "cutesy" attitudes of the film's characters exist in concert with the gushy fairytale aesthetic. For once, the filmmakers try to "update" an old genre for once without compromising the original model. That being said, "Tangled" still has a very timely feel to it--I don't foresee it maintaining its cultural relevance the way Disney's other iconic princess films have. I wouldn't mind seeing a return of the studio's glory in the 90s. Anyway, the film itself has merit apart from its generic origins. It's quite funny, beautiful looking, and moving in some places. The story feels familiar and yet there are surprising turns throughout. It has lovely side characters and a complicated villain. "Tangled" also enjoys a slight cult following--it is endlessly quoted by college friends of mine. Altogether, "Tangled" is a lot of fun and we all feel pretty good by the end of it. What is more, I don't feel utterly used by the film's repetition of classic patterns. Well done Disney.
Honorable Mention (in no particular order):
The Town -- A tight thriller with an intriguing premise and a great cast. Ben Affleck is proving himself to be a solid director.
Winter's Bone -- A superb performance from Jennifer Lawrence (watch her closely, she'll be a rising star). It's a gangster movie set in the methlands of Appalachia. Truly absorbing.
Clash of the Titans -- I don't care what anyone says, this is a well constructed special-effects fantasy adventure. The characters are interesting and the action scenes are pretty fun. The film has a cool attitude and a wonderful look.
Predators -- Adrian Brody the action star? Yes. Yes absolutely. I am so ready for the AVP franchise to die so that Alien and Predator films can be made again. Here we have the first example of that. It's gritty, violent, and masculine. More please.
The Chronicles of Narnia: The Voyage of the Dawn Treader -- It gets props for trying, but it ultimately fails. The longest and the best of the books becomes the shortest and least of the films. It doesn't help that audiences don't care to see Narnia movies anymore, sadly. But fox/disney have terribly mismanaged the franchise. It could have gone on. On the plus side, the addition of Will Poulter to the cast is a welcome one, as is the presence of Simon Pegg as Reepicheep. The film is not without its moments, but if feels very rushed and the story is wasted potential.
The King's Speech -- Solid period movie with a great script and good performances from its top-notch British cast. Helena Bonham Carter as a normal person. She should do this more often.
Legend of the Guardians: The Owls of Ga'Hoole -- This film gets props for it's look. It's simply beautiful to look at. It comes close to establishing a lucrative franchise but the story itself betrays the series potential. Side note: the film's trailer is one of my favorites. 30 Seconds to Mars y'all.
You Will Meet a Tall Dark Stranger -- Woody Allen's films seem so singular in their style and unapologetic in their taste. Yet they always bear taking a look at because we all know from whom they originate--and I for one am always curious about the man himself. I feel like over time, watching Woody Allen's films grants one an insight in to the person. His films are, after all, always about himself in some way. :)
Ondine -- A beautiful Irish film with all the potential for greatness...but which turned out to be a good film. Had the film steered in a more supernatural direction, I think it would have been better.
The Karate Kid -- A handsomely made and refreshing remake of the original (a film I have almost zero relationship with). Jayden Smith is not as awful as I thought he would be, and Jackie Chan gets the chance to deviate from his typically clownish persona and allows us to take him seriously as an actor. Setting the film in China was a perfect decision.
Toy Story 3 -- This film was primarily a disappointment to me. I realize I am greatly outnumbered in this regard, and that's fine with me. I just didn't get the glow from this film that I got from many other Pixar films (including the great Toy Story 2). Best picture nomination? Nope, didn't deserve it. The reason this film appears here is there were a few moments which were comic gold such as the fabulous opening sequence -- a great visual representation of what is going on in our heads when we play with toys. Also, Michael Keaton as the Ken doll....yes.
Iron Man 2 -- for once a sequel shies away from the temptation to out-do the predecessor. Finally a sequel delivers simply, "more of the same." This is good because the predecessor was good. I would have liked to have more bad-guy in this one, but oh well. The film also features a fantastic martial-arts sequence with Scarlett Johanson-- a great surprise to me and the audience I saw the film with.
Death at a Funeral -- the American remake with Chris Rock shocked me by actually exceeding the serviceable British comedy it is based on. Who saw that coming? Casting Peter Dinklage again was a good decision.
Diary of a Wimpy Kid -- this film walked a tight line between awful kids movie and a really smart comedy about kids. It was laugh-out loud funny at moments and smiley chuckle at others. Primarily, I enjoyed the charismatic young actors who carry the film through. It remains to be seen whether the kids can maintain the charm in any inevitable sequels. I read the book this movie is based off of: it adapts the book surprisingly well and yet feels like its own thing. I was afraid the film would have difficulty adequately adapting the material as the book is unique in its bookness if you know what I mean.
How to Train Your Dragon -- Admittedly, this film was much more impressive the first time through than subsequent viewings. It was fresh, it had likable characters, and it was a feast to look at. The 3D did nothing to improve the film of course - a waste. I dread the inevitable sequels though.
The Wolfman -- I was really excited for this film: great cast, great look, and mostly practical creature-effects courtesy of make-up master Rick Baker. Unfortunately, the creature effects were not very interesting. I expected more from Benicio Del Toro in the mask I guess. Hugo Weaving was a welcome face though, and so was Anthony Hopkins (who dons the wolf himself--not a spoiler to anyone who watches trailers). Sadly missed was the option to view the film on DVD with its original industrial/electronica score which had been finished but abandoned in the 11th hour. Danny Elfman's score is more traditional and serves the film well however. Fun but forgetful.
Morning Glory -- A great cast, a great premise, and a great execution. Nearly all turn in great performances (on which the film is heavily dependent). The downside? Not enough Diane Keaton, and way too much Patrick Wilson. Wilson is a charmless actor. He shouldn't work so much. Ford reminds me a lot of my grandpa in this movie (haha). Overall, very funny, very satisfying movie.
The Tempest -- Oh, Julie Taymore, where did you go wrong? You had all of the pieces: great material, great cast, great costumes. Why was the movie not up to par? Who knows. She tries interesting things here - like mixing some of the verse of Shakespeare's play into music (i.e. it is sung). Also, Helen Mirren as "Prospera"? Great idea! Russell Brand (first movie I have seen him in) and Alfred Molina are wonderful. The costumes are fantastic (zipper-punk!). Ben Wishaw as Ariel was wasted potential -- wonderful visual feast, but his performance left me puzzled. Overall? Should have been one of the best films of the year. But it isn't.
The Fighter -- Christian Bale deserves the accolades for once. Great performance from him. Everyone else does a good job too. An entertaining drama which toys with tone expertly.
posted by Your humble servant at 12:16 AM
0 comments
