Originally published in the 1/31/09 edition of The Source.
If not for the presence of Blackberries and laptops, "Edge of Darkness" could be mistaken for a replay of Mel Gibson's greatest hits.
Bereaved family man out for revenge ala "Mad Max" and "Ransom?" Check. Cop pushed to the brink of despair and madness, just like "Lethal Weapon?" Check. Quiet loner dishing out violent, bloody justice similar to "Payback?" Check. Detective Tom Craven couldn't be a more tailor-made Gibson character if he was wearing blue face paint and a kilt.
Of course, there's a reason Gibson winds up typecast in these roles: Few actors are able to combine integrity, righteous anger and a touch of madness as well as he does. He's the rare actor equally at home in a screwball comedy or a hard-edged noir, unpredictable because his characters - slightly off-kilter with a penchant for gruesome violence when necessary - are a bit more intense than those played by, say, Tom Hanks.
So Gibson is right at home in this police thriller, helmed by "Casino Royale's" Martin Campbell, playing a cop whose life unravels after his daughter is brutally murdered on his doorstep. While it is initially assumed that the murderer was originally after Craven, his own off-the-books investigation reveals, as such investigations always do in these movies, that there is "More To The Story."
What follows is the typical corporate conspiracy thriller made so popular in the 1990s, where the plot follows like this: Someone close to the cop is murdered in what looks like a standard incident. The cop decides to lay aside his badge and pursue the investigation on his own, and learns that their loved one has been the pawn or whistleblower in some vast corporate scheme that usually involves pharmaceuticals or the federal government. These movies are best known for their villain, who is usually dressed in a suit and seated in a corner office. The films also reliably offer a scene where the hero grimly intones "I'm not going to arrest anyone ... I'm going to kill them.""
Edge of Darkness" makes no effort to hide the fact that it's a pure formulaic exercise; it's actually a remake of a British miniseries directed by Campbell. We know from the start that the murder was likely not just a random crime and when Craven finds his daughter's work badge while going through her things, we know that sooner or later there's going to be a trip to her office, which is likely where we'll meet the piece's villain.
The question is not whether "Edge of Darkness" is formulaic, but whether or not it works. And despite the fact that I felt like I'd seen this movie a dozen times before starring Ashley Judd or Harrison Ford, "Edge of Darkness" does work more often than not, thanks largely in part to Gibson's tough-as-nails performance. The actor's always been able to center his heroes with a sense of humor and warmth, and the early scenes show an easy rapport between Craven and his daughter. The film's first act, in which Craven mourns his loss and has imaginary conversations with his daughter's ghost, is a powerful addition to the formula that manages to convey a sense of loss and a longing for revenge.
Gibson, who has been absent from the screen since 2003 to direct "The Passion of the Christ" and "Apocalypto," ably creates a wounded, soulful hero. Unlike his peers, who often play characters half their age, Gibson is playing an older man, a grizzled police veteran. We know he's seen violence and, just by the cold look in his eyes and the gravel in his voice, we know he's capable of dishing it out as well. Few characters can balance integrity with a touch of madness as well as Gibson, and he's in top form here.
He's nearly upstaged by Ray Winstone, who plays a shady "consultant" brought in by the government to observe the situation and decide whether to silence Craven. With a touch of both comedy and sadness, Winstone creates a great counterpoint to the black-and-white Craven: He's a hit man who's seen too much, lived too little and is weary with the world he lives in, amazed to see a forthright man like Craven amidst the sleazy politicians he works for. Winstone and Gibson have only a few scenes together, but both are the film's high points, elevating it above formula to a place that hints at something deeper that the film may have lost at the editing stage.
Any fault with the film comes from Campbell, whose own track record is full of hits like "Casino Royale" and misses like "Vertical Limit." As stated earlier, Campbell is remaking his own 1980s miniseries and one gets the sense that he's grown a bit tired of the story. Plot points in certain areas are rushed and confusing, and I'm not sure that all the pieces connect as cleanly as Campbell would like them to. It's easy to see that a bit longer of a running time and some more careful scripting would have given the plot the necessary time to unfold and breathe, as certain plot threads feel rushed and others - like the scenes between Winstone and Gibson - seem to just scratch the surface of saying something deeper.
But Campbell is also adept at filming a great action sequence and he delivers a few memorable set pieces here, including one genuinely startling character dispatch. When it comes time to put away the plot and pull out the big guns (literally), Campbell stages the violent climax with the right mixture of adrenaline without making it exploitive. And his handling of Craven's grief in the earlier scenes is a refreshingly touching change of pace from the way such inciting incidents are usually glossed over in these films.
But the audience will likely come for Gibson, whose return in front of the camera is solid while refreshingly familiar. It's nice to know the actor in him can still play the same roles so well after a long break. So long as he stays away from "Lethal Weapon 5," it's a pleasure watching him take on the old tics again.
I'm going to come out and admit it: I'm not a fan of semi trucks.
I get tense whenever I need to pass one on a freeway. I hate driving along the freeway at night and seeing the headlights glaring in my rear view mirror. I don't like walking into a rest stop because I'm afraid the truckers are going to be leaning against the wall, smoking cigarettes and drinking beer, ready to rough me up.
So it's odd that I've waited until now to see Steven Spielberg's 1971 feature directorial debut, "Duel," a thriller about a mild-mannered salesman (Dennis Weaver) who cuts off a semi one day and finds himself terrorized by the driver.
That's pretty much all you get for a plot description--David Mann is driving out to a sales call when he passes a slow moving semi and then, for the next 90 minutes, it's a game of cat and mouse as the semi driver first toys around with David and then reveals that he may actually have murder on his mind. That's it; just Mann escaping a bloodthirsty semi driver. No wife to save or hidden conspiracies, ala "Breakdown" and no final act that mixes up the modes of transportation like "Speed." Just a man (or Mann) and his red Valiant against a dirty, beat up, smoke belching semi truck. The result is a visceral thrillride that's worth a look simply to see how Spielberg's talent was evident even with this first film.
Watching it tonight, I was reminded how much I hate CGI car chases. I know a lot of people loved the most recent "Fast and Furious," but I loathed the computer-generated car chases. Yes, the digital effects make it look like the cars can go really fast through impossible situations. But there's something about the use of practical effects and stunts that adds another layer of intensity (want more evidence? The last 20 minutes of "Death Proof" beat anything in the "Fast and Furious" franchise). When we see Mann's car take a tight turn at a high speed and then swerve to right itself, our stomachs clench up a little bit. When the semi plows through a phone booth, we know that it was a stunt man who dove out of the way of the oncoming truck but there's still more danger in that shot than in simply creating the car out of nothing. Probably 60 of the film's 90 minutes are dedicated to high speed car chases and it's a pleasant surprise to see just how tense and nerve-wracking they still are after all these years.
Even in his first film, Spielberg's trademarks are evident. There's the suburban family at the background as Mann calls his wife to apologize for a fight the night before. There's the use of close-ups on rear view mirrors and car windows. There's the unseen villain, a template Spielberg would perfect just four years later with "Jaws"--and, indeed, there is a case to make for calling this film "Jaws with a truck," as both films share a raw, primal power.
Even though this is largely a one-man show, Spielberg ably gets us into Mann's head. After an early encounter with the truck, Mann finds himself in a cafeteria looking for the bathroom so he can regain his composure. Spielberg tracks him through the cafe in an unbroken, handheld shot; I love the way the shot's shakiness helps us share in Mann's paranoia, and there's a great punchline to the shot when it ends back at the cafe window, staring at the truck that has mysteriously reappeared. Less successful are some of the voice overs that try and get us into Mann's head--yes, the early line about how the event is "shaking loose whatever held you into place" is well written. But voice over as a rule is a sloppy device and it tends to spoon-feed us information that Weaver's competent performance should have made apparent.
Weaver's performance is crucial in adding an element of psychological thriller to "Duel." Mann starts the film as a composed, somewhat confident salesman, proud of his clean car and nicely-groomed, probably a little cocky on the road. As the truck causes him to become unraveled, he begins accosting strangers at the cafeteria and his attempts to help a school bus make him look deranged. At the end he's a nervous wreck, his voice shaking and high. In the end he's a bundle of nerves, alternating between exhilarated victory and breaking down in terrified tears.
In a way, "Duel" is less about Mann's encounter with a truck and more about his struggle with emasculation. One of the things that intimidates me about truckers is that they often seem to be more like "real men" than I am. I'm polished up in my suit and tie, living a safe and comfortable existence. They're out on the road, caked in grease and grime, working long hours and late nights away from home. They're rougher and tougher, while the rest of us often can feel a bit more fragile and weak.
In many ways, that's the plight Mann finds himself in. The film opens with Mann listening to a talk radio show where a caller is concerned about filling in his census form as "head of the house" because he feels that's the position his wife's taken. When Mann stops for gas and the clerk tosses off a "you're the boss," Mann snaps back with "not at my house." And when he calls to apologize to his wife, it's because he didn't stand up for her when a friend was making an advance at a party. And then, this timid, well-groomed and mild-mannered salesman finds his existence threatened by an unflappable force that stalks him with an almost supernatural determination. When he tries to help out a busload of kids and his car gets stuck, the camera lingers on them laughing at him and making faces. I don't even think I have to bring up that Mann drives a tiny red Valiant and the shot's of the semi truck emphasize its large size.
The psychological undertones of "Duel" are interesting, but at heart this was simply a great chance for Spielberg to show his skills at engaging audiences and delivering heart-stopping set pieces. A surprisingly solid debut for a young director who went on to become Hollywood's biggest name.
So, one of my goals for 2010 is to expand my writing a bit more. Writing about film and studying it has always been a passion of mine and this site exists to accommodate that hobby a little bit more. For the most part, in the nearly a year this site has been online, I've been writing about new theatrical releases and new release DVDs. But as I seek to increase my own cinematic knowledge and background, I realize how much I still need to see and how many movies I love that I never got a chance to review on their first go-around.
So, there are going to be new features added to this blog. One will be an irregular series of columns when I have a thought on something going on in the world of film (also, possibly television)--this could be about recently-announced projects, trends, box office, awards...whatever I feel like tackling.
The other new feature will be Catch Ups, which will be my thoughts on movies that have been out for awhile that I'm just now seeing. I'm not sure how long these reviews or posts will be; will likely depend on the film itself and how much it impacted me. Hopefully that will get started this weekend. There are already a few queued up and ready to be watched--"Sunset Boulevard," "Rashomon," "North By Northwest" and "Duel" will be the first entries in this.
I'm also hoping to bring back The Alphabet Project. The project was started by me last year to go through my DVD collection and write about every single one. It was a bit much, though, as I suddenly found myself swamped with more than 100 different DVDs and no time to watch them all. So my goal for 2010 is to do The Alphabet Project--The Essentials.
The way it works is this; one of my DVD racks at home is stocked with films that I consider to be some of my favorite of all time. There's probably close to 50 on the shelf. The hope is that this year I will go through them and write my thoughts about each one. Next year, we'll try to expand that list a bit to my other titles. But here's a look at what films I hope to tackle this year...although it will likely stretch into 2011 as well:
Alien Aliens Almost Famous Anchorman The Back to the Future Trilogy Before Sunrise Before Sunset The Big Lebowski The Blues Brothers Close Encounters of the Third Kind Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind Frailty Ghostbusters Goodfellas The Goonies Groundhog Day Hoop Dreams Hot Fuzz Hot Shots! Hot Shots! Part Deux The Hurt Locker The Incredibles Inglourious Basterds The Indiana Jones series Jaws Kill Bill, Vol. 1 Kill Bill, Vol. 2 Let the Right One In The Lord of the Rings trilogy Lost in Translation Meet the Parents Moon The Muppet Movie The Naked Gun Office Space Pan's Labyrinth Planes, Trains and Automobiles Punch-Drunk Love Shaun of the Dead The Shawshank Redemption A Simple Plan Star Trek (2009) Synecdoche, New York Taxi Driver Tommy Boy The Truman Show United 93 Up The Visitor When Harry Met Sally WALL-E
Now, I have posts for a few of them already written from last year and I will likely just repost those (I believe I got through Before Sunset/Sunrise but don't have Alien/Aliens in there yet). But after that, we'll begin working through these.
I look forward to these new projects and to hopefully gaining new readers through them!
Note: I did not see "The Final Destination" in 3D. Two dimensions were painful enough.
I should probably state upfront that it took me two viewings to get through "The Final Destination." Initially I threw my hands up in the air because I was so bored, frustrated and depressed with this fourth (!) entry in the popular horror series and I shut the DVD player down. But I figured if I was going to bash it, I owed it to the film to see it to the end. So I did...ah, the things I do for a readership that I'm not sure exists.
I'm sure that many who read this review and enjoyed "The Final Destination" will try to protest that "oh, you're just saying that because you're a critic. The film wasn't made for you." First off, I hope that I don't meet anyone who was a fan of this movie. Second, I saw the film precisely because I had, in the past, been a fan of the "Final Destination" series. I stand by my assertion that the film's first entry is stylish, genuinely creepy and fun. The second and third lost any of the things that made the first film so enjoyable--namely the mood and characters that I actually liked--but had a wonderfully dark sense of humor and fun about the whole affair that made them guilty pleasures. "The Final Destination" lacks even the sense of humor, replaces the series' use of fun practical effects with lame CGI and gives us characters who would be shallow and transparent even on an MTV reality show.
By now the premise is familiar. A group of teens whose names I don't even think I remember five minutes after turning the movie off go to a NASCAR race. One of the teens has a premonition that the race will end with an explosive, violent end and urges his friends to leave...they do, just as the disaster happens. Now, those who survive are stalked by death itself, who prefers to devise elaborate Rube Goldberg devices rather than, you know, simply cause the teens to stop breathing. A tow truck, swimming pool drain, staple gun, lawnmower and 3D movie theater all come into play in killing our (so-called) heroes as they try to figure out a way to cheat death. None of these are shocking, scary, inventive or witty. Even the premise-setting disaster is handled in a rushed manner, without any of the suspense or build-up the other films had. The first "Final Destination" had a plane crash that still ranks as one of the most terrifying things I've seen and it had a sharp sense of humor about how absurd its premise was--I still chuckle when I think about their use of John Denver music in premonitions, Devon Sawa sitting in a padded suit to open a can of peaches or the effective jump scare when the girl got hit by a bus (that particular death is cribbed here again without any of the skill, surprise or wit that made the original incident so effective.) The idea of humor and ingenuity here is to have a lady tell her kids "I've got my eye on you" and then get killed with a rock to the eye.
I'm actually already tired of talking about this movie. It's sad, it's boring and there's no entertainment value to it whatsoever. The acting is capable for this type of movie, but it's bland beyond all belief. David Ellis--who helmed the second entry and the great guilty pleasure "Snakes on a Plane--has no sense of tone, mood or style and directs this film without any sense of how to work an effective scare.
But also, maybe I'm just getting older and wiser. It's simply not fun to watch people die. The deaths in these films are not structured like scares anymore, but like jokes--there's a gigantic buildup and then the punchline of a gory finish. Forget for a moment that Ellis bungles any of the timing and skill that it would take to effectively pull it off. On a deeper level, it's just depressing to watch a movie waiting to see how characters will die. It presents a fatalistic, hopeless view of humanity that is disturbing to see played as entertainment, especially when I can turn off the DVD and see news of real-life calamity in Haiti. I have no problem with a good horror movie and I like to be scared...what I've grown tired of is this subgenre of films that structurally has more in common with pornography than actual storytelling--it strings a flimsy story along as an excuse to give us our "money shots," which here are simply violent and grotesque scenes instead of sexual ones.
Of course, the film was a huge hit, which shows I'm in the minority. Sigh. Maybe that's the scariest thing about the series after all.
"The Book of Eli" may be one of the strangest film hybrids I've seen in awhile. A mashup Western/Post-Apocalyptic actioner, the R-rated film from The Hughes Brothers ("Menace II Society") has a plot that will likely earn a following among religious filmgoers, so long as they can handle a protagonist who slices, dices and decapitates in following his mission from God.
If it sounds like I'm knocking the movie, I'm not. While I always fear the worst when I see any film released in January or February, the truth is that "The Book of Eli" is a fun, thrilling little action flick that actually has some interesting ideas at its core. It's not going to revolutionize the genre or stand alongside the likes of "The Road Warrior," but I can guarantee it's more fun than "The Spy Next Door."
Denzel Washington stars as Eli, but he may as well be kin to Clint Eastwood's Man-With-No-Name. Eli has been roaming the nation for 30 years, ever since nuclear war devastated the landscape. Eli is heading west. While I'm pretty sure that walking across the country can be done in less than three decades, Eli seems to know what he's doing: after all, he's on a mission from God. See, in his possession, Eli has the last copy of The Bible.
We're told enough about the war to learn that religion may have been the cause of it. All copies of the Bible were burned and destroyed shortly after nuclear weapons "punched a hole in the sky" and let solar radiation eradicate everyone on Earth who hadn't taken shelter. The result is that the Earth is a bleached-out, ash-strewn landscape. On the plus side, everyone gets to wear really cool sunglasses.
Eli found the Bible shortly after the war, urged on by a voice in his head telling him to head west. The voice may also be offering protection. The roads, after all, are plagued by cannibalistic scavengers and robbers, and everyone's bullets seem to pass right by Eli. Also, in a world where everyone is dehydrated and so in need of food that they're willing to cook cats, Eli has remained quite physically fit. He's able to take down entire gangs with just some flashy kungfu and a machete.
It's actually quite a bit of fun to see Denzel Washington in this role. The actor's gravitas lends a bit of solemnity to Eli's holy mission, but it's even more fun to watch Washington cut loose as a bonafide action hero. Denzel has always possessed a quality that makes him a commanding and authoritative presence in his films and giving him some weapons gives him a sense of quiet menace. I'm surprised no one's tried to tap into that before--he seems a more natural action hero than, say, Nicolas Cage.
Anyway, Eli is making his way West so he can find a suitable home for the Bible. On his travels, he happens into a small town run by Carnegie (Gary Oldman). Carnegie seems to be part mayor-part godfather of the small town, relishing his opportunity to twist, bend and intimidate people to his will. The fact that Oldman, with his greasy hair, gold chains and Southern accent, seems to have patterned Carnegie on a sleazy televangelist should inform you that he does not have good purposes in mind for Eli's Bible, which he has been searching for for years. Caught up in the middle is Carnegie's daughter Solara--whom he hires out as a prostitute. He ain't father of the year--but then again, he named his daughter Solara--and she was born just years after the sun fried half of humanity.
So yes, it's easy to see how the film could have been unwieldy and, in lesser hands, a bit of a mess. Had someone tried to make the film a somber, serious affair it likely would have crashed and burned. But the Hughes', who work far too sporadically, give the film a sense of humor and energy and style. Yes, the film takes place in a bleached, ash-strewn environment where all of our creature comforts are gone; but they give the henchmen just enough absurdity and allow Oldman to chew the scenery enough for us to know that we're allowed to have a little fun. They show a skill at filming action sequences that seems to have been forgotten in this day of Michael Bay/Paul Greengrass quick cuts and flash edits; it's refreshing to see a sustained shot in which we can actually see a character performing martial arts instead of a quick blur of legs and fists.
But the film is elevated by actually having an interesting idea at its core. Simply protecting the last Bible on Earth would not have made for an engaging story--after all, the Bible is no good at all if it sits simply on the shelf. But the Hughes' explore the notion that the words of the Bible can also be distorted and misconstrued to twist and manipulate people; many false prophets have done just that. Carnegie is indicative of those who use religion for power--and living in this country, we've seen quite a bit of that.
But I've seen many reviews that gloss over Eli's arc as a man who sets off first simply to protect the Bible but then becomes aware of how little of its words he's actually put into practice. I read one review that summed the film up this way "Denzel Washington forsakes the gospel to protect the Bible," but I have to disagree with that. Eli is a flawed hero; in the beginning he has a narrow minded purpose of preserving the Bible and we see him ignore cries for help in the street. Through his encounter with Solara, he learns how to put the words of Christ into action and realizes his own failures; the movie never comes out and shows Eli depending on grace and forgiveness, but it does treat the Bible with a reverence that we rarely see in films these days.
Of course, it all comes down to an ending that I'm sure will split audiences; those happen to be the endings I like the most. And the Hughes' big twist may be hard to believe...but if you believe in miracles and the seriousness behind Eli's mission, it's really not that unbelievable at all. Some will say it's fundamentalist propaganda...I say that if we could handle James Cameron's "Earth first" diatribe in "Avatar," surely we can handle treating God seriously.
The film's not perfect. There's an encounter with an elderly couple that starts off as a shaky attempt at humor...although to be fair, it takes a deliciously dark and creepy turn. There's a subplot involving a local engineer that is never really followed up on. And MilaKunis, who is turning into a strong comedienne in other films, is fairly inert here, although to be fair she's acting alongside Denzel Washington and Gary Oldman...you're bound to be overshadowed.
But "Book of Eli" is not meant as art. It's meant as entertainment and it succeeds very admirably. The action is fun, Washington and Oldman are as reliably good as ever and there's something to be said for a film that actually has an idea at its core--especially a theological one, which too many films shy from. Is it subtle? Heck no...but, again, it's an action movie...when are they ever subtle? I'd rather see 100 "Book of Eli's" than one "Fireproof."
I suspect this movie is a perfect antidote for those who may find "The Road" too bleak. "The Road" is the better movie and deals a bit more artfully with maintaining faith, humanity and morality in a world gone to hell. But then again, "The Road" was meant as art..."Eli" is an action film. And it does just what it sets out to do: it entertains, excites and blows stuff up real good. The fact that you may leave discussing its theological themes is a very pleasant surprise.
Who says January has to be empty month at the movies?
The most telling thing about my top 10 films of 2009 are the films that I had to leave off…”District 9,” “Star Trek” and “Precious” were all in contention at one time or another. But these were the 10 that made me laugh, cry, think and be thankful to live in a time where anything is still possible at the movies.
And at the top of the list is the latest film by today’s greatest magic workers, who took a story of a widower, a Boy Scout and lots of balloons and soared away with audiences’ hearts.
1. Up: Last year, Pixar’s wonderful sci-fi comedy “WALL-E” topped my list of best films. Whether “Up” is as good as or better than that gem is up for debate, but one thing’s for sure: the story of an old man, a precocious child, a talking dog and a flying house is the best time I had at the theater in 2009. Heartbreakingly poignant, nail-bitingly exciting and side-splittingly funny, “Up” is the rare cinematic experience that takes viewers through the entire spectrum of emotion. It is a blissful, perfect piece of cinema filled with wonderful characters, unexpected depth and unending delight. Pixar is the gold standard in storytelling and “Up” is the most wonderful film of the year.
2. A Serious Man: Joel and Ethan Coen followed up the dark and foreboding “No Country for Old Men” with the zany political satire “Burn After Reading.” So it only stands to reason that the ever-unpredictable writing-directing team would take another left turn with this darkly funny meditation on faith, suffering, family and the wrath of God. Stage actor Michael Stuhlbarg is perfect as the put-upon Larry Gopnik, a Jewish physics professor in 1970 Minnesota who tries to maintain his integrity even as his life begins to unravel. Stuhlbarg maintains his dignity and wins our empathy even as we’re laughing at the unfairness of Larry’s life. It’s been said this is the Coens’ most personal film and the attention to detail shown in the nuances of small-town Jewish community life evidence that this was a labor of love for the brothers. The film manages to balance shocking plot reversals, hilarious in the way that only life’s pain can be, with serious questions about faith and the nature of suffering to deliver a deceptively minor film that packs a surprising punch in its final moments.
3. Avatar: Twelve years after “Titanic,” James Cameron proves he’s still the king of the world. . . and he gives himself a whole new one to conquer as well. With the beautiful and exquisitely-detailed Pandora, the director gives us the most wonderfully realized computer-generated environment and, with the Na’vi, perfects the use of motion capture technology. The story may be derivative but in Cameron’s hands it doesn’t matter; it’s simply an excuse to introduce audiences to this new world and dazzle them for three hours with the most awesome and entertaining big screen spectacle since “Lord of the Rings.” In an age where the Internet and television continue to fight for our attention, Cameron reinvigorated the event movie and, by pushing special effects technology to its limit, reassured us that nothing is impossible in movies anymore. Michael Bay may make critics weep for the blockbuster; Cameron reminds us it’s not a lost cause.
4. Moon: This little seen sci-fi gem is one of the genre’s best entries since “The Matrix.” Sam Rockwell gives a powerful, funny and complex performance as a man struggling with isolation, loneliness and possibly insanity while waiting to return home from a three-year stint on a lunar outpost. After an accident nearly kills him, Rockwell’s character learns dark secrets that cut to the core of his identity and humanity. Director Duncan Jones creates a workmanlike, utilitarian atmosphere in space that keeps the film grounded in reality and Kevin Spacey pays homage to “2001” with his voice work as the station’s robotic helper, who may have an ulterior mission in mind. But it’s Rockwell’s fierce, heartfelt work that lifts the film into orbit. There was a time when science fiction probed the deeper questions of life, humanity and morality; thankfully “Moon” remembers and recaptures that spirit.
5. Inglourious Basterds: The final words of Quentin Tarantino’s war epic are “I think this may be my masterpiece.” Rarely has pretention felt so deserved. The “Kill Bill” director has wanted to make his men-on-a-mission film for years, but I doubt anyone expected this from him. The film is Tarantino at his absolute best, filled with long passages of exquisite, screw-turning dialogue punctuated by brief bursts of violence. Christoph Waltz’s turn as “The Jew Hunter” is as deliciously wonderful a villain as this decade has seen—evil has rarely been so charming. Brad Pitt hams it up as the redneck leader of a group of renegade soldiers, but it’s Melanie Laurent who gives the film its heart. As the vengeance-seeking owner of a Parisian movie theater, Tarantino uses the character to explore his two favorite themes: revenge and film. This may be the first war movie to be more about movies than combat and the exhilarating climax perfectly mixes absurdity, violence, tragedy, comedy and adrenaline to create one of the decade’s most flat-out entertaining set pieces. Funny, tense and surprisingly powerful, Tarantino creates such a glorious epic that we’re willing to follow him even as he rewrites the war’s ending.
6. The Hurt Locker: While audiences were flocking to Michael Bay’s brainless “Transformers” sequel, the best action film of the year was being ignored by the masses. Kathryn Bigelow’s look at Army bomb disposal units in Iraq is as tense and thrilling as films come, first jarring us with the horrific reality of a bomb explosion and then putting our nerves on edge as we wait for it to happen again. Newcomer Jeremy Renner is stunning as a combat-addicted adrenaline junkie, for whom a normal life in the suburbs is more of a nightmare than dealing with bombs and insurgents. Bigelow, the director of such high octane flicks as “Point Break,” hits a career high here, mixing psychological drama with an action thriller that adds up to one of the year’s most unforgettable film experiences.
7. (500) Days of Summer: Director Marc Webb’s comedy tells us at the outset that while it’s a story of boy meets girl, it is not a love story. Hogwash. “(500) Days of Summer” may technically be about a breakup, but its heart is filled with romance. Jason Gordon-Levitt and Zooey Deschanel are perfect as two lovers who meet, mate and breakup in the course of a year and Scott Neustadter’s witty script bounces through time, genre and style with gleeful postmodern delight. It’s the first romantic comedy in ages to feel fresh, funny and intelligent. Yet the tale’s true appeal is how ably Webb plucks our heart strings; everyone has their own Summer and, for many, 500 days is not enough time to make us forget them.
8. Up in the Air: Director Jason Reitman delivered a scathing look at modern America, a charming and witty romantic comedy and a powerful human drama about isolation and relationships all wrapped up into one wonderful little film. George Clooney gives the best performance of his career as Ryan Bingham, a “termination facilitator” who lives his life from terminal-to-terminal, not only bragging about his skill in avoiding serious human relationships, but conducting seminars to tell others how they can do the same thing. Reitman’s third film—following the equally wonderful “Thank You for Smoking” and “Juno”—examines our current economic devastation, our tendency to isolate ourselves and our growing dependence on electronics as relationship surrogates. Yet his cast—featuring stand-out work from Vera Farmiga, Jason Bateman and newcomer Anna Kendrick—makes the entire ordeal charming, funny and light as a feather. It’s not until the bittersweet final moments that we begin to realize just how deeply Reitman has involved us, further confirming that he is one of the most intriguing directors to appear this decade.
9.The Fantastic Mr. Fox: Stop-motion animation, whimsical characters and storybook settings are a perfect fit for director Wes Anderson (“Rushmore”), who delivers his strongest work yet in this adaptation of Roald Dahl’s classic children’s story. Clooney is fantastic (pun intended) once again as the charming and sly Mr. Fox, who wages war on evil farmers Boggis, Bunce and Bean (one fat, one short and one lean). While that plot alone might make for a delightful children’s film, it’s the very adult attention to detail and character that make this such a pleasure. Each animal character (wonderfully acted by Anderson favorites Bill Murray, Angelica Huston, Jason Schwartzman and Owen Wilson) has a distinct, adult personality and each is given a moment to steal the spotlight (Schwartzman is particularly great). More than that, Anderson once again revisits his favorite themes of family and relationships and makes Mr. Fox’s behavior the result of a very-believable midlife crisis (some men buy Porsches; Mr. Fox kills chickens). This all adds up to an original, funny, whimsical and extremely enjoyable little masterpiece. As Mr. Fox would say: it’s pretty cussing great.
10. Where the Wild Things Are: Some accused director Spike Jonze’s adaptation of Maurice Sendak’s beloved story to be too deep, dark and disturbing for children. The truth, however, is that Jonze—the director of the brilliant “Being John Malkovich” and “Adaptation”—is not making a film just for children; he’s making a film for anyone who has ever been a child. And his imaginative, beautifully realized film, anchored by Max Record’s phenomenal performance, perfectly recaptures the unrestrained joy, energy, rage and fear of childhood. It’s tough, deep stuff and I can understand why the film has cut to the core of some critics (including this one) and left others cold; it’s not the fun, engaging and brainless dreck Hollywood normally throws at families. It is, instead, deep, profound, whimsical, truthful and a tad scary. It’s the best re-creation of what it feels like to be a child that I’ve ever seen.
1.Bruno: In 2006, I named “Borat” as one of the year’s best films. This year, Sacha Baron Cohen tops the “other” list with one of the biggest comedic miscalculations I’ve ever witnessed. Forget the fact that it’s easily the decade’s most offensive film; unlike “Borat,” Cohen doesn’t have a naïve, likable character to bounce off his unwitting subjects. Instead he has a vulgar, vain and obnoxious creation who thrusts his way into people’s faces with such violence that I can empathize with their shocked, angry reactions. Yes, it’s offensive. Yes, it’s rude. But “Bruno’s” biggest crime is being unfunny.
2. The Last House on the Left: I don’t hold Wes Craven’s original film in the high esteem that many critics do, but I’ll acknowledge that he takes his subject seriously and portrays it with the grit and somberness it deserves. This rancid remake—about two parents who turn into raving psychopaths when the men who raped and murdered their daughter and her friend turn up at their house—asks us not only to empathize with the wrathful parents (which is understandable) but to root them on as they torture, dismember and destroy the men. The film is told with such a slick gloss and the violence is so amped up that it’s obvious the producers want audiences to squirm and then cheer. But, given the subject matter, my only response is to get sick and weep for our culture.
3. (tie) X-Men Origins: Wolverine and Terminator: Salvation: Kicking off what turned out to be a fairly anticlimactic summer for blockbusters, Wolverine and John Connor managed the rare feat of taking two beloved franchises and killing all audience goodwill to them. Wolverine—easily one of the most dynamic Marvel heroes—tiredly slicked his way through a turgid prequel while Christian Bale’s monotonous rants and McG’s bland direction turned the Terminator’s “I’ll be back” from a promise into a threat.
4. Couple’s Retreat: This film’s cast has been involved in one way or another with projects like “Swingers,” “Wedding Crashers,” “Watchmen,” “Arrested Development,” “Elf” and “Iron Man.” Director Peter Billingsley was Ralphie in “A Christmas Story.” There, I just gave you seven things to watch rather than this trite, unfunny, cliché, boring mess of a romantic comedy. When it begins airing 30 times a year on TBS you’ll have every opportunity to see just how bad this movie is.
5. Hotel for Dogs: I gave this film a slight pass upon seeing it because while I was not entertained the kids in the audience seemed to enjoy it. But looking at my top ten list and seeing titles like “Up,” “Fantastic Mr. Fox” and “Where the Wild Things Are,” I realize that this was the year when kids were actually respected at the box office with films of wit, originality, substance and heart. So shame on Nickolodeon films for this pandering, brainless mix of cute dogs, poop humor and obnoxious tween heroes.
This isn't necessarilly the way I wanted to do this list. I wanted to go back and watch all 10 (or, technically, 12) of my top of the decade and write about them in detail. But the holiday rush and the desire to get this published before year's end didn't allow for that. No matter; there's a new project I'm hoping to tackle in 2010 where I can revisit most of them again.
The best way for me to do this list was to just initially see what titles stood out for me at the end of the decade. After all, this list is not meant to be objective--there's no way I can claim to have seen the greatest films of the decade because there are hundreds I'm sure I've missed. But even as films jumped out at me, I found myself scouring IMDB to see other films that I realized would also qualify for this list. So yes, after it's written I'm going to probably regret leaving some films off the list. That's the way it goes.
But, after weeks of careful consideration, here are the 10...er, 12...films that I think qualify as my favorites of the decade. Starting with a trilogy that, when it was first announced, I had no desire to see...
1. Lord of the Rings: I remember when I first heard that JRR Tolkien's fantasy trilogy was being readied for the big screen. I think my response was a yawn. I've never been a fantasy person. I've never cared for stories of elves, dwarves and magic. But when that first trailer came out, I was suddenly hooked. I can still remember the Wednesday opening afternoon when I saw "Fellowship of the Ring." As the film hit its cliffhanger ending, I remember that for the first time in ages I didn't want to leave the theater. I wanted the rest of the story. And over the next two years, Peter Jackson gave us 12 hours of the most ambitious and successful storytelling Hollywood has ever offered. It's a wonderful mixture of a perfect cast, unparalleled special effects (I'll take the tactile mixture of models and CGI over pure motion capture any day) and Tolkien's epic tale. The greatest thrill for me was watching the story unfold over three years and finding that, unlike many trilogies, this one stuck the landing. I personally don't think that this should be looked at as three separate movies but one long tale...although I'll also admit that I think "Return of the King" is the most perfectly told of the three movies.
2. Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind: On any given day, this is my favorite film of all time. Yes, on a technical level, it's near perfect: Charlie Kauffman's insane, time-and-consciousness bending script; Michel Gondry's whimsical, yet gritty, direction; and pitch-perfect performances by Jim Carrey and Kate Winslet add up to a breathlessly original and mind warp of a movie. But it's the emotional resonance of this movie that levels me...we've all had people who we wish could be deleted from our memories. But with that we would lose all the beauty and joy that made the person so important to us. As I've entered into a serious relationship this year I've thought of this movie a lot, about how love is hard work and we encounter others who will not only enchant us but also frustrate, confuse and sometimes anger us. Is it worth it? The final scene of this movie hits me in the gut every time I see it. I know some who feel it's a sad ending but I prefer to look at it as hopeful...that single word, "okay," means more than any passionate kiss or declaration of love ever could. This is a great film.
3. United 93--The one film on this list that I hate to watch. It's the understatement of the decade to say that 9/11 was the most defining day of the last 10 years. It's a day when we still tense up and our emotions are still raw. So it's not surprising at all to find that this film, released less than five years after the tragedy, hit like a sledgehammer. Paul Greengrass brought his fly-on-the-wall, documentary style to this recreation of what occurred on the doomed flight to Pennsylvania. Casting many of the same air traffic control officers who were working that fateful day, he comes as close as we will ever get to giving us a matter-of-fact, no-spin document about what occurred on Flight 93, when the passengers rallied to keep the terrorists from hitting their final target. It's a hard film to watch--the last hour is unbearably intense and the final 10 minutes are as gut-wrenching and emotionally devastating as anything I've ever seen. And that's the point: this is not a movie that attempts to dress the tragedy in sentiment or create heroes and myths of the men and women on the flight. Instead, Greengrass tells the story of a group of strangers whose fates were bound together and, as regular Americans, they fought back even though it meant their deaths. By refusing to ladle on emotion or manipulation, Greengrass actually makes the film more powerful...there was open weeping in the theater where I saw this and I found myself shaking and crying in the theater afterward. This is a movie some still refuse to watch, and I understand why. But I find it necessary to revisit it once in awhile so I will keep myself raw and wounded by this tragedy and reminded of the heroism of average individuals.
4. There Will Be Blood: My girlfriend hates this movie with a passion. She thinks it's a portrait of evil. Oddly enough, I agree with that sentiment and it's the reason why I love this film so much. Daniel Day-Lewis gives the performance of the decade here, creating a character so callous, greedy and ruthless that we may often find our self wincing just when he speaks. If we were supposed to root for him and like him, I would probably agree with my girlfriend that this movie is not worth my time. But Paul Thomas Anderson, the only director to appear on this list twice, is well aware that Plainview is an evil man with a soul that is quickly dying. That's the story he's interested in telling--how one man's twisted ambition and greed destroy his relationships and himself. It's a film of how greed warps our heart, twists our religion and corrupts our souls. If ever a film was a portrait of Romans 1, where we see how our depraved desires lead to our death, it would be this film. In his portrait of a merciless oil man and a wicked false prophet (masterfully played by Paul Dano), Anderson shows just what human beings are capable of. It tells the Gospel by showing us the effects of life without the Gospel. And the final, brutal scene may feel tacked on at first, but it was promised to us in the title. And it's the perfect culmination of a movie that feels like the prime example of James' warning that sin, when it is fully conceived, gives birth to death. This is a sermon in a film, a fire-and-brimstone, "Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God" warning that holds more truth and power than any scene in "Fireproof" because it treats our sin nature more seriously than any Hollywood film I've ever seen.
5. Before Sunset: It was a sequel to a little-seen film that no one was necessary clamoring for a sequel to. No one, that is, except for those of us who saw Richard Linklater's brilliantly romantic "Before Sunrise," which featured Ethan Hawke and Julie Delpy as two college kids who meet one night in Vienna and spend an evening talking and falling in young love only to depart with the pledge to see each other again in six months. The film was smart, perceptive and romantic. And it would have been easy for Linklater--who also helmed the wonderful "Waking Life" this decade--to give us a frothy, dopey romantic sequel where they meet again and fall in love. But this sequel, set one afternoon in Paris, doesn't take the easy route. The characters are a bit more mature, both wiser to the ways of the world and carrying their own scars from that night in Vienna. For the film's first 50 minutes, romance and a reconnection aren't even on their minds as the brilliant script allows the characters to talk about politics, growing old and marriage with an honesty that may say just as much about the actors as the characters. But the chemistry is still solid and we're still reminded of that night nine years earlier...and the film's final half hour delivers an emotional power that sneaks up on us and asks us to consider our own old flames, missed connections and the times we put any hope of love and romance aside. All of this, of course, leads up to the movie's final scene, which may be the most perfectly-realized final shot of any movie ever made, but satisfying and frustrating in the same moment. I revisit Jesse and Celine's story at least once a year and I can safely say now that if Linklater wants to do another sequel in nine years, I'd be first in line.
6. The Incredibles--Over the last three years, the Pixar films "Ratatouille," "WALL-E" and "Up" have made appearances on my best-of list. There is something going on at Pixar that I have never seen at a single studio...they are cranking out classics each year, each one full of heart, brilliance and poignancy. Half this list could have been filled with movies like "Finding Nemo," "Monster's Inc." and the rest and I would find a way to justify it. But I decided to pick just one movie. And I had to pick "The Incredibles." Is it the best Pixar film? I don't know; I don't even know if I could name a best Pixar film. What I do know is that it seems to be the one I love the most, filled with perfect amounts of action, comedy, heart and wit. The animation is gorgeous. The characters are brilliantly realized. And it's the rare animated film that actually tackles topics of infidelity, midlife crises, family drama and dares to say that "if everyone's special, then no one is." But above all, the movie is just an insane amount of fun, the greatest superhero movie of the decade...the film's last hour is more exciting than anything we witnessed in a Batman, X-Men or Spiderman flick. Where's our sequel???
7. No Country for Old Men: I considered doubling this up with "There Will Be Blood" because, thematically, both movies could fit together very easily. But it deserves it's own spot. The Coens have never been better than this taut, bleak and pitch-black thriller. Working from Cormac McCarthy's novel, they weave a story that on the surface is about a man (Josh Brolin) running from a hitman (Javier Bardem) after discovering millions in drug money in the dessert. Dig deeper and it's a movie about the silence of God, how our greed leads to death, the inevitability of death and judgement and of the effect mankind's depravity has on the world. Look at the surface or dig deeper for the symbolism, it doesn't matter: "No Country" is a gut-punch of a movie, from it's perfect performances to the Coens masterful direction. Tommy Lee Jones, as a world-weary sheriff, has never been better and Bardem, in Anton Chigurrh, creates a villain for the ages.
8. Punch-Drunk Love: I hated this film upon first viewing; left the theater frustrated and confused. It was years later before I saw it again and, for whatever reason, something on that viewing clicked. Paul Thomas Anderson's film (his second on this list) on the surface is a quirky Adam Sandler romantic comedy. But if that's all you look at it as, you're going to have the same reaction I did originally. Digging deeper, it's a comedy about a man (Sandler, in the performance of his career) who is insecure, frustrated, lonely and angry. He can't express himself, can't fit in with friends and is brow-beaten by his sister. Then he meets a girl. And it's that attraction, that love, that begins to heal him. It gives him confidence. It gives him power. Just as he begins to restore an old harmonium which, like him, is battered but can make something beautiful, Barry begins to find his life finding direction and meaning. It's a beautiful story of redemption and love and while it's subplots--involving pudding, a scheming phone sex operator and the aforementioned harmonium--may seem random, the truth is that they all are necessary to helping us understand a human being who finds his hope when he finds love. I've come from hating this film to loving it passionately, and the "He Needs Me" sequence is one of the most moving portraits of love I've seen.
9. Lost In Translation: This was a decade of great love stories and we've already had two on the list. But how could I not include Sofia Coppola's ode to love and friendship in Tokyo? This movie has gotten me so many lonely nights and every time I revisit Bob (Bill Murray) and Charlotte (Scarlett Johannson), I feel like I'm revisiting old friends. Two people--an actor and a newlywed--strike up a friendship while stranded at a Tokyo hotel. Do they fall in love? Coppola wisely doesn't make this a torrid romance but a friendship that seems to hint at deeper things. Like many of this decade's great love stories (I'd also include "Once" and "Lars and the Real Girl"), it's not about how they find completion in each other but healing in their brief time together. Bob, going through his midlife crisis, finds renewed passion, emotion and life. Charlotte finds reassurance that her life is not a mess and that her marriage, while tough, may just be worthwhile. And both find a friend in a place where they know no one else. If you had told me at the beginning of the decade that Bill Murray would give one of my favorite dramatic performances of the year, I would've laughed...but he's never been better than in this film. And Johannson has never topped the work she's done here. And yet, the film is so minor. Such a lovely little character piece. It's not a big, bold love story. It's a story that you tell with the same fondness you would say "remember that time...". And that's the beauty of it.
10. Munich: It is surprising that I had to wait until number 10 to put Steven Spielberg on this list. After all, the world's most lucrative director didn't take this decade off. And he certainly wasn't slumming. In fact, the 00's saw Spielberg at his most experimental and daring, giving us light-as-a-feather comedies ("Catch Me if You Can," "The Terminal"), a flawed masterpiece (A.I.) and two dark yet thrilling sci-fi actioners ("War of the Worlds," "Minority Report."). Yes, he also gave us "Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull"--a film many loathed and yet I still maintain is just as lighthearted and fun as any of the other Indy sequels. But "Munich" is his most ambitious, daring, controversial and powerful film. It's about Jewish soldiers getting revenge on the terrorists who killed their atheletes in Munich. But it's about so much more--it's about the price of revenge, about how bloodlust can destroy our souls and set a course for more disaster. The parallels to 9/11 and our post-attack culture were unmistakable and this film works both as a thrilling action adventure and a devastating examination of the price of revenge...there are moments of pure adrenaline here and pure emotional torture. It's a tough film, one that left me shaken for about a week following. And it sums up this decade about as well as "United 93" did.
