2010 Oscar Predictions: Gearing Up

These'll be coming fast and furious from now on, I hope. This is turning out to be one of the more interesting Oscar predictions seasons in a long time. Say what you will about the decision to extend the Best Pic nominees to ten, but it's creating some pretty intense conversation pieces.

Best Picture:

Amelia
An Education
The Hurt Locker
Invictus
The Lovely Bones
Precious
The Road
A Serious Man
Shutter Island
Star Trek

Best Director:

Kathryn Bigelow, The Hurt Locker
Lee Daniels, Precious
Clint Eastwood, Invictus
Peter Jackson, The Lovely Bones
Lone Scherfig, An Education

Best Actor:

George Clooney, Up in the Air
Matt Damon, The Informant!
Daniel Day-Lewis, Nine
Peter Sarsgaard, An Education
Michael Stuhlbarg, A Serious Man

Best Actress:

Saoirse Ronan, The Lovely Bones
Gabourey Sidibe, Precious
Meryl Streep, Julie & Julia
Hilary Swank, Amelia
Audrey Tautou, Coco Before Chanel

Best Supporting Actor:

Matt Damon, Invictus
Anthony Mackie, The Hurt Locker
Tobey Maguire, Brothers
Alfred Molina, An Education
Christoph Waltz, Inglourious Basterds

Best Supporting Actress:

Anna Kendrick, Up in the Air
Mo'nique, Precious
Imelda Staunton, Taking Woodstock
Rachel Weisz, The Lovely Bones
Michelle Williams, Shutter Island

Best Adapted Screenplay:

Amelia
Nine
Precious
Up in the Air
Where the Wild Things Are

Best Original Screenplay:

Bright Star
Brooklyn's Finest
Funny People
The Hurt Locker
A Serious Man

Best Animated Feature Film:

The Fantastic Mr. Fox
9
Up

Best Art Direction:

Bright Star
Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince
Inglourious Basterds
Public Enemies
Where the Wild Things Are

Best Cinematography:

Amelia
Avatar
Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince
The Hurt Locker
Nine

Best Costume Design:

Bright Star
Cheri
The Tempest

Best Film Editing:

Avatar
The Lovely Bones
Nine
Shutter Island
Star Trek

Best Makeup:

Avatar
Star Trek
Watchmen

Best Original Score:

Avatar
Bright Star
A Christmas Carol
The Lovely Bones
The Road

Best Sound Editing:

Avatar
District 9
Public Enemies
Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen
2012

Best Sound Mixing:

The Hurt Locker
9
Star Trek
Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen
2012

Best Visual Effects:

Avatar
Star Trek
2012

An Updated 2009 Rundown, and August Anticipation

I've seen some stuff in the month of July. I've added "Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince" (****), "Coraline" (****) "My Sister's Keeper" (****), "G-Force" (***1/2), "Public Enemies" (***1/2), and "Ice Age: Dawn of the Dinosaurs" (**1/2). I've also downgraded "Taken" by half a star, bringing it to ***1/2; just a movie that has withered a tad over time and that I'm not as enthusiastic about now.

J.J. Abrams's "Star Trek" (****)
David Yates' "Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince" (****)
Zack Snyder's "Watchmen" (****)
Pete Docter's "Up" (****)
Henry Selick's "Coraline" (****)
Nick Cassavetes' "My Sister's Keeper" (****)
Alex Proyas' "Knowing" (****)
Michael Bay's "Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen" (****)
Sam Raimi's "Drag Me to Hell" (****)
Pierre Morel's "Taken" (***1/2)

Hoyt Yeatman's "G-Force" (***1/2)
Gavin Hood's "X-Men Origins: Wolverine" (***1/2)
Tom Tykwer's "The International" (***1/2)
Letterman/Vernon's "Monsters vs. Aliens" (***1/2)
Michael Mann's "Public Enemies" (***1/2)
Tony Scott's "The Taking of Pelham 123" (***1/2)
Justin Lin's "Fast & Furious" (***)
Anne Fletcher's "The Proposal" (***)
Andy Fickman's "Race to Witch Mountain" (***)
Carlos Saldanha's "Ice Age: Dawn of the Dinosaurs" (**1/2)

Paul McGuigan's "Push" (**1/2)
Peter Chelsom's "Hannah Montana: The Movie" (**)
McG's "Terminator Salvation" (*1/2)
Brad Silberling's "Land of the Lost" (zero stars)

I should be seeing A LOT more movies in the month of August. The first weekend (the 7th) brings us "G.I. Joe: The Rise of Cobra," which looks cool, and "Shorts," which could be a major comeback for Robert Rodriguez in the kid's arena (his last decent family flick was "Spy Kids 2: The Island of Lost Dreams"). Also interested in the Meryl Streep/Amy Adams headliner "Julie & Julia." The second weekend (the 14th) is packed with goodies and brings us Peter Jackson's intriguing "District 9," Hayao Miyazaki's newest animated film "Ponyo," Todd Graff's high school comedy "Bandslam," Robert Schwentke's romance/fantasy "The Time Traveler's Wife," and Neil Brennan's "The Goods: Live Hard, Sell Hard." The third weekend (the 21st) brings only one film of interest to me: Quentin Tarantino's war film "Inglourious Basterds." The last weekend offers only Ang Lee's artsy semi-biopic "Taking Woodstock."

Films I'm skipping out on for various reasons: An unhealthy influx of horror movies, such as "A Perfect Getaway," "Halloween II," and "The Final Destination." Also, horrid-looking romcoms, like "Post Grad" and "My One and Only." Also missed will be littler movies that probably won't play in the Dallas/Fort Worth markets: "Cold Souls," "Paper Heart," "It Might Get Loud," "Spread," "Grace," and "St. Trinian's" (I'll try to catch some of these on DVD).

Review: G-Force (***1/2)

Zach Galifianakis (Ben), Will Arnett (Kip Killian), Bill Nighy (Saber), Kelli Garner (Marcie), Piper Mackenzie Harris (Penny), Tyler Patrick Jones (Connor), Jack Conley (Agent Carter), Gabriel Casseus (Agent Trigstad), Justin Mentell (Terrell), Niecy Nash (Rosalita), Loudon Wainwright III (Grandpa Goodman). Featuring the voices of Sam Rockwell (Darwin), Penelope Cruz (Juarez), Nicolas Cage (Speckles), Tracy Morgan (Blaster), Jon Favreau (Hurley), Steve Buscemi (Bucky). Directed by Hoyt Yeatman. Rated PG (action, rude humor). 89 minutes.

In 2005, Disney released a film that was a glorious spectacle in the B-movie tradition. It was called "Sky High," and it was a dazzling mix of the "Harry Potter" series and "The Incredibles" that worked wonders and was that summer's most fun release by a mile, a joyous respite that worked as well as, but in different ways than, the darker releases that season, such as the final "Star Wars" film or the "Batman" reboot. In the same way, and with one minor but considerable flaw, "G-Force" is this year's answer. The film is in no way smart or sophisticated, but how can it be? It's about guinea pigs that are special agents with the FBI! The plot calls for a B-movie and "G-Force" delivers the goods.

The movie forms some sort of plot. Appliance manufacturer Leonard Saber is developing brand new technology to go along with his devices (including a specially-designed coffee maker); it will connect them using a radio frequency. But his inventions seemingly hide something more sinister: the operation reveals something called Clusterstorm, a plot to overrun the world with machines. On the case are the G-Force of the title, and they include: three guinea pigs named Darwin, Juarez, and Blaster and their mole Speckles. The team escape from the clutches of the FBI and are marooned in a pet shop. Here they meet Hurley, an unsure, slightly overweight guinea pig, desperate to leave the pen. After losing one of their own team members in an escape plan gone awry, team leader Darwin is keen on vengeance--and will stop at nothing to prevent global destruction.

If we still lived in the times of VHS, video tapes everywhere would probably be worn out watching "G-Force." It's just that type of movie. It reminds, in tone, of last year's "Meet Dave," except with better special effects and a much more sufferable first act. "Meet Dave" was neither as terrible as the trailers were nor as clever as the concept was. "G-Force," on the other hand, is much more involving than its concept would initially seem. The idea of guinea pigs as special agents is tired and juvenile, sort of like making a movie about Alvin and his fellow chipmunks, which did happen, to disastrous results. "G-Force" is the Second Coming in comparison and much cleverer than most kid-friendly espionage movies out there; it's the best of its kind since the underrated, kind-of-visionary gem "Spy Kids 2: The Island of Lost Dreams" and trumps fare like both "Agent Cody Banks" movies, "Catch That Kid," and the unbearable "Alex Rider: Operation Stormbreaker," none of which have the wit or style of this film.

The G-Force is a likable troupe of guinea pigs and more characterized than you may think--with one exception. Leader Darwin, plagued by guilt over the loss of a good friend around the end of the first act, turns into the consummate movie hero, extremely likable, resourceful, and flawed. Sam Rockwell embues humanity into his role, which is one of the best voiceovers in a Disney film I've seen a long while. Agent Juarez is somewhat of an off-to-the-side role but Penelope Cruz does what she can and does it well, besides. As Hurley, Jon Favreau is hilarious and heartfelt, much the same way John Ratzenberger is in his many voiceovers for Pixar's films. Nicolas Cage's voice is completely unrecognizable as Speckles, the mole in two different ways, but he's terrific and almost photorealistic in execution.

If the film has a flaw, it is in the inclusion of Agent Blaster, voiced irritatingly by Tracy Morgan, who is underqualified for this role. They could've gotten Eddie Murphy and the role could probably have the potential to be a Donkey-type of beloved animated character. More intriguing is Steve Buscemi's virtual extended cameo as Bucky, a fellow petshop-mate of Hurley's, who is funnier with 10 minutes of screen time than Blaster is in the entire picture. My suggestion to the writers would be to switch those characters and the star rating might have been pushed up to four stars.

Luckily, Blaster only pauses the experience and doesn't bring it to a complete halt. Otherwise, the film is unadulterated fun and one of the better movies this summer. The action scenes are actually intense (something I didn't foresee), and the villain, Saber, is played with great relish by Bill Nighy. One might think Nighy is too good, but he impresses from frame one with a deliciously over-the-top performance that reminds of John Malkovich's Pascal Sauvage in the underrated "Johnny English" or Jim Broadbent's Inspector Butterman in the brilliant "Hot Fuzz" (which this film is the kid-version of). The other human actors are window-dressing, like Zach Galifianakis and an underused Will Arnett, but that is perfectly okay under the circumstances.

Director Hoyt Yeatman has directed his first feature after years of special effects work, but he proves himself worthy with this film, a kind of Michael Bay for the kiddos. He frames some of his action scenes as Bay would. The ending would have been derivative of "Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen," what with its Transformer made out of kitchen appliances, but it's practically as insane as some of the stuff in last month's action masterpiece. The special effects are nearly as accomplished and deliriously beautiful. That Oscar winner Scott Stokdyk (look him up) helped with effects is not surprising. Editor Mark Goldblatt has worked on such big-budget films as "Starship Troopers," "Armageddon," "Hollow Man," and "Bad Boys II," and he uses every tool in his arsenal here (that "G-Force" is better than those movies is perhaps more indicative of their deficiencies, but what the hey).

"G-Force" is a wonderful family film, one that is unexpectedly moving at times and nearly always funny; but it has that extra layer of ingenuity that most live-action family films from Disney have missing. This summer has presented disappointments, like "Terminator Salvation" and "Land of the Lost," both films with better advertising than this and another surprise, "X-Men Origins: Wolverine." "G-Force" is a big success and should be seen by 7-year-olds everywhere. One of the shocking aspects about the movie is its refusal to pander to the age group and then treat them like imbeciles. There is a genuinely surprising twist at the end that kids may not like, but they will certainly understand it. It treats its target age with respect and doesn't condescend. That's all we can ask for.

Review: Harry Potter and Half-Blood Prince (****)

Daniel Radcliffe (Harry Potter), Rupert Grint (Ron Weasley), Emma Watson (Hermione Granger), Jim Broadbent (Horace Slughorn), Michael Gambon (Albus Dumbledore), Tom Felton (Draco Malfoy), Alan Rickman (Severus Snape), Maggie Smith (Minerva McGonagall), Bonnie Wright (Ginny Weasley), Jessie Cave (Lavender Brown), Evanna Lynch (Luna Lovegood), Helena Bonham Carter (Bellatrix Lestrange), Robbie Coltrane (Rubeus Hagrid), Frank Dillane (Tom Riddle at 16), Hero Fiennes-Tiffin (Tom Riddle at 11), Helen McCrory (Narcissa Malfoy), Warwick Davis (Professor Flitwick), Mark Williams (Arthur Weasley), Julie Walters (Molly Weasley), Natalia Tena (Nymphadora Tonks), David Thewlis (Remus Lupin), Matthew Lewis (Neville Longbottom), Freddie Stroma (Cormac McLaggen), James Phelps (Fred Weasley), Oliver Phelps (George Weasley), Amelda Brown (Mrs. Cole), Anna Shaffer (Romilda Vane), Elerica Gallagher (Waitress), Georgina Leonidas (Katie Bell), Timothy Spall (Peter Pettigrew), David Bradley (Argus Filch), Isabella Laughland (Leanne), Alfie Enoch (Dean Thomas). Directed by David Yates. Rated PG (scary images, violence, language, sensuality). 153 minutes.






"Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince," like "Star Trek" before it, represents this summer's biggest success. Not only is the film itself a masterwork (and boy, is it), but like the film that went as boldly as ever, this one doesn't simply center around amazing visual effects. It deals with matters of the heart, too, and crafts one of the best suspense thrillers in recent years. Shymalan and Hitchcock would be proud of some of the set pieces on display here. The sheer aptitude that clearly-gifted director David Yates uses to film what is probably the hardest PG-rating for any movie ever, or at least since "Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom" 25 years ago, is something to behold. Also, the film boasts the best cinematography of the year and certainly of the series.


Following the tragic death of his godfather Sirius Black, Harry Potter's summer between fifth and sixth years at Hogwarts is interrupted when Albus Dumbledore snatches him away to the nice village of Budleigh Babberton. Harry's mission: help convince Potions master hopeful Horace Slughorn to return to Hogwarts. More important are the memories that Slughorn holds of Lord Voldemort, so that Harry and Dumbledore can find Horcruxes--pieces of Voldemort's soul that, if destroyed, will be the end of him. Meanwhile, Harry himself battles another villain: affection, specifically for Ginny Weasley, Ron's younger sister. And Hermione and Ron have spats in between Ron's snogging with Lavender Brown.





There are two scenes in "Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince" in which Hermione and Ron call Harry their best friend. It's this kind of connection that makes the film so special, more so than any visuals could. One scene in particular has Hermione pouring her heart out to Harry after Ron and Lav-Lav kiss for the first time. It's heart-wrenching and heart-warming in equal measure, because we know the friendship between them and Ron is as strong as any in the film medium. The hormones that are prevalent at the age of 16 are fierce and brutal (heck, they still are for me, four years later), and the film presents them in an uncompromising way. Luckily, there's hope yet. The last five minutes in particular are an exquisite capper on a trio of friendship that will most assuredly last a lifetime.

But it wouldn't be "Harry Potter" with the usual dazzle of special effects, and they are as accomplished as ever. The first scene has a thrilling and terrifying attack by Death Eaters on the helpless Muggles. The war has started. No one's safe. The effects used here are flawless, as are those in an equally scary attack on the Burrow (the Weasleys' house). The blurry, surreal murkiness of the transition into the crucial memory sequences couldn't be more perfect. The final sequence in a dank and dark cave is almost too realistic, with the disgusting inferi and the subsequent ring of fire Dumbledore conjures to ward them off indistinguishable from the actual-real surroundings.






The other tech credits are seamless. The musical score by Nicholas Hooper is essential to setting the mood for every scene and it does that beautifully, especially in the most tense of moments. The aforementioned cinematography by the great Bruno Delbonnel is sumptuous and utterly gorgeous, shrouding everything in a surreal light that matches the goings-on in the plot. Things at Hogwarts are not the same as they once were, and at the end, the situation is even more grave. The cinematography reflects that beautifully, especially in the emotion-driven ending. That Delbonnel has signed on to the two-part "Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows" gives me hope that they will be absolutely terrific-looking unlike anything else.

The actors are more than impressive. Daniel Radcliffe, Emma Watson, and Rupert Grint by now know these roles and could play them in their sleep, but luckily they don't. These are strong, committed performances by consummate professionals, not young-adult actors anymore, and the scenes of teenage hormones are beautifully played-out by all involved (also of note are equally strong takes from Bonnie Wright as Ginny and newcomer Jessie Cave as groupie Lavender Brown). Other actors of the generation include Tom Felton, as evil and conniving as ever as Draco Malfoy, with a new mission from the Dark Lord himself, and Evanna Lynch, as quirky and wise as ever in the now-historic role of Luna Lovegood (one of my personal favorite characters in the series).






But as good as the "kids" are, the adults are even better. Deserving of an Oscar nomination (and possible win) is Michael Gambon as Dumbledore. It's amazing to think that at one time I was unsure of his transition into the character, especially after the regal Richard Harris played the headmaster in the first two films. Now, though, I can't imagine anyone else playing this role better than Gambon, whose Dumbledore is a man willing to take whatever comes his way. As the wisest and most powerful wizard, it's something to behold when he becomes vulnerable in the last act; Gambon is shattering and unforgettable, a force of nature in what reminds me of Billy Crudup's devastating turn as Dr. Manhattan in "Watchmen." Alan Rickman is superbly icy in another of the year's great turns thus far. His Snape hasn't had much to do since the first film, only playing Snape in extended cameos. Snape doesn't even try to cover up his true colors by the end, and Rickman gives the character an extra layer that is unforeseen and a bit of foreshadowing for the final film in the series. And the great Jim Broadbent (one of my favorite actors ever since "The Borrowers" twelve years ago) is, well, great as Horace Slughorn, quirky and only a little conceited but with a smidge of something else when he talks about students he loved.

"Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince," as corny as it may sound, is ultimately about the power of a friendship among three people that comes around once in a blue moon. It's why the final sequence, implying a dangerous and frightening journey that they may not survive, is so beautiful. Ron and Hermione pledge their complete devotion to Harry's task as their own. The school is lost, the world is darkened by a pall of dread and gloom, but their friendship will last an entire lifetime, no matter what happens. And we all relate to it, because we all have at least one friend who is comparable (I know I do). The razzle-dazzle of special effects, the beauty of the cinematography, the pathos of the actors' performance--none of it would matter if the film didn't have that heart-wrenching element of truth and gravitas. This is one of the year's finest achievements.

OSCAR 2010: Talk About Change

Due last week's triple-announcement of changes, including a nixing of both the Original Song and Honorary Awards categories and the majorly controversial move to extend the number Best Picture nominees to ten, things are going down at AMPAS that most people don't like. For the record, I'm not a big fan of the nixing of any categories, but I am one of the few proponents of the Best Pic extension. Any haughty judgments that people have been awarding the move are solely based on circular logic: the reasons against it are the reasons it should exist, or so it appears. I think the Academy is pushing the limits of their creativity in a way that could resuscitate interest in the proceedings (overlong telecast notwithstanding). It opens the door up for quite a few movies to be noticed from now on and I hope they keep this up (unless it turns out disastrous).

Having said that, I figured it would be time for a new Predix article. Note that these are not original nominee predictions. I get these from the fellas over at InContention. But then no predictions are truly original, as the folks at IC get theirs from Awards Daily for the most part and I'm sure Awards Daily gets theirs from somewhere else. It's not plagiaristic to copy off something that's not an original in the first place, is it? Plus, I'm not that literate in the art of predicting like those before me, so I take what makes sense from others' perspectives and make them my own. They are conveniently original.

Here goes, down a different road than before:

Best Picture:

Avatar
Bright Star
Funny People
The Informant
Invictus
Precious
Public Enemies
A Serious Man
Shutter Island
Up

Best Director:
Kathryn Bigelow, The Hurt Locker
James Cameron, Avatar
Lee Daniels, Precious
Clint Eastwood, Invictus
Mira Nair, Amelia

Best Actor:


Daniel Day-Lewis, Nine
Johnny Depp, Public Enemies
Jeremy Renner, The Hurt Locker
Peter Sarsgaard, An Education
Ben Wishaw, Bright Star

Best Actress:

Shohreh Aghdashloo, The Stoning of Soraya M.
Abbie Cornish, Bright Star
Penelope Cruz, Broken Embraces
Carey Mulligan, An Education
Audrey Tautou, Coco Avant Chanel

Best Supporting Actor:

Matt Damon, Invictus
Anthony Mackie, The Hurt Locker
Tobey Maguire, Brothers
Alfred Molina, An Education
Christoph Waltz, Inglourious Basterds

Best Supporting Actress:

Kathy Bates, Cheri
Marion Cotillard, Public Enemies
Penelope Cruz, Nine
Leslie Mann, Funny People
Mo'nique, Precious

Best Adapted Screenplay:

The Informant
Nine
Precious
Shutter Island
Up in the Air

Best Original Screenplay:

The Boat That Rocked
Bright Star
(500) Days of Summer
The Hurt Locker
A Serious Man

Best Animated Feature Film:

Coraline
The Fantastic Mr. Fox
Up

Best Art Direction:

Amelia
Bright Star
Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince
Nine
Where the Wild Things Are

Best Cinematography:

Bright Star
Green Zone
The Hurt Locker
Public Enemies
The Road

Best Costume Design:

Bright Star
Cheri
Public Enemies

Best Film Editing:

Bright Star
Green Zone
Invictus
The Lovely Bones
Public Enemies

Best Makeup:

Bright Star
Star Trek
Watchmen

Best Original Score:

Avatar
Broken Embraces
The Lovely Bones
The Road
Up

Best Sound Editing:

Green Zone
The Hurt Locker
Star Trek
Terminator Salvation
Up

Best Sound Mixing:

Green Zone
The Hurt Locker
Public Enemies
Star Trek
Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen

Best Visual Effects:

Avatar
Star Trek
Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen

2009: A Rundown (Updated)

Here's the, well, rundown for you.

J.J. Abrams's "Star Trek" (****)
Pete Docter's "Up" (****)
Zack Snyder's "Watchmen" (****)
Michael Bay's "Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen" (****)
Alex Proyas' "Knowing" (****)
Sam Raimi's "Drag Me to Hell" (****)
Pierre Morel's "Taken" (****)
Gavin Hood's "X-Men Origins: Wolverine" (***1/2)
Tom Tykwer's "The International" (***1/2)
Letterman/Vernon's "Monsters vs. Aliens" (***1/2)

Tony Scott's "The Taking of Pelham 1 2 3" (***1/2)
Justin Lin's "Fast & Furious" (***)
Anne Fletcher's "The Proposal" (***)
Andy Fickman's "Race to Witch Mountain" (***)
Paul McGuigan's "Push" (**1/2)
Peter Chelsom's "Hannah Montana: The Movie" (**)
McG's "Terminator Salvation" (*1/2)
Brad Silberling's "Land of the Lost" (zero stars)

So there you have it. 18 movies. Back with more at the end of next month.

Review: Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen (****)

Directed by Michael Bay

Cast: Shia LaBeouf, Ramon Rodriguez, Megan Fox, Josh Duhamel, John Turturro, Julie White, Kevin Dunn, Tyrese Gibson, Isabel Lucas, Michael Papajohn, Rainn Wilson, Glenn Morshower, Matthew Marsden, John Benjamin Hickey.

Voice Cast: Peter Cullen, Anthony Anderson, Hugo Weaving, Darius McCrary, Reno Wilson, Frank Welker, Tony Todd, Charles Adler, Tom Kenny, Jess Harnell, Mike Patton, Robert Foxworth, Mark Ryan.

2009--150 minutes

Rated: PG-13 (sci-fi action violence, language, crude and sexual material, drug material)

In 2007, "Transformers" was one of the best summer movies to have been released. No question about it. It wasn't perfect, but it signaled the strengths of director Michael Bay, who specializes in action and effects, rather than in characters or dialogue. With breathtaking visuals and Bay's famous (or infamous, depending on who you listen to) hyperkinetic editing that doesn't leave room for development, "Transformers" was a rollercoaster of a ride. Still, it had its flaws, most notably an overlong action finale and an irritating performance by John Turturro. The question was, would Bay be able to top the already huge success of his first film? The answer is an overwhelming "yes."

"Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen" is a new classic in the action genre, one of the best entries in a long time. After years of horrid action films (such as Bay's own "Armageddon" in 1998), movies like this coming rising from the phoenix ashes and rejuvenate hope that someone, somewhere, is making the "great trash" that Pauline Kael once reveled. She must be turning in her grave right now. "Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen" is something of a miracle, a $200-million movie that wastes not a penny and has a masterwork to show for it. The movie is, no doubt, as dumb as a box of hair, but Bay knows this. His films (especially ones titled "Transformers") are about nothing more than explosions and carnage. Don't go in expecting "Citizen Kane," and you'll enjoy yourself. The dialogue is indeed pretty terrible, but who really cares in the long run, if you can see ginormous robots beating the robotic daylights out of each other, courtesy of some of the best visual effects in the medium?

The plot is a non-issue, but I'll run it down anyway. Sam Witwicky is still recuperating from finding a race of alien robots on Earth and banishing the evil Megatron to the depths of the sea. Now he's starting college, but is cut off after one day when he finds a sliver of the supposedly destroyed All-Spark. He has a breakdown in class and begins to see strange symbols in the front of his vision. When he is called by leader of the Autobots, Optimus Prime, to take part in the ultimate battle with the remaining Decepticons, Sam is reluctant to do his duty. But he is forced into action when the Decepticons attack and transported to Egypt to find a mysterious key that could save the world and its sun--if he finds it before the god of the Decepticons (the Satan of the film).

"Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen" borrows elements from as many films as you can think of, but that doesn't stop Michael Bay from doing his thing. From the beginning of the movie, you can sense Bay at the top of his game like he's never been. An early action sequence in Shanghai sets the stage for what comes next and plays a major part in helping the heroes out. It's a thrilling sequence, but nothing compared to what Bay has in store for the next two hours. It seems that the entire film, every five minutes, is drinking a can of Monster spiked with stereoids; the adrenaline starts and never stops. Very little is off here--perhaps the pot-induced humor is tired and all the sensual angles of females get old after we've realize they're hot--but so much of it is insignificant to the film as a whole that you forgive and forget in a matter of seconds. Other attempts at humor, especially with regards to John Turturro (who really comes into his own here) and twin robots named Skids and Mudflap, are hugely successful and sometimes rip-roaring. The dramatic bits are vintage Bay--histrionics at best--but effective enough at showing the main couple's relationship troubles.

But audiences are looking for Bay's specialty: explosive mayhem. Dialogue and character development are not part of the Bay equation, and anyone who has seen any of Bay's movies knows this. The carnage on display contains some of the best-choreographed action in a long time. A sequence early on in which little tiny robots attack Sam at his house is nearly perfect in execution, culminating in a rescue attempt from Sam's personal "alien robot car," Bumblebee, that ratchets up tension in a matter of seconds. The hour-long finale ultimately doesn't fall into the trap of the finale in the first film (which was too long by half), even if it's longer by 25 minutes. The plotting is pretty hefty and a little labyrinthine, but the side characters explain everything as best they can. The action keeps things going, and by the end, everything comes together perfectly. Some shots are breathtaking in their aesthetics, especially in the homestretch of the finale. The robots are bigger and better than ever; Bay's visual effects artists have outdone themselves and topped the seemingly-impossible-to-top graphics in the original. And throughout, Bay has his signature hyperkinesis at an all-time high.

"Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen" is a breathless ride, and part of that is credited to the performances. LaBeouf still hasn't topped his role in "Disturbia" as far as acting goes, but he's a perfect fit for Sam Witwicky, unassumingly handsome and charming with that spark of life needed for an action hero from cartoonland. Megan Fox is hotter than ever, yes, but adds some layers to her role of Mikaela, so thankless in the first film. The main characters' relationship feels somewhat real, and there seem to be fireworks this time. John Turturro, as the sardonic Agent Simmons, spouts off fewer irritating one-liners and fleshes out his character to be a major player in the plot, instead of the nuisance he undoubtedly was in the original; he gets a moment of truthful and heartfelt civic duty in the middle of the climax, and when he voices this, we believe him. It's true none of these performances are Oscarworthy (which is the difference between this and the superior "Star Trek"), but they more than get the job done, reminding of Roland Emmerich at his very best with the well-acted "Independence Day" 13 years ago.

Also notable is the voice work, whose ante is upped considerably. Peter Cullen is, as he always has been, perfect for Optimus Prime, voice filled with emotion and pride and sometimes anguish. Turturro voices the best new robot, Jetfire, who isn't introduced until the middle of the movie and comes into play, big time, in the insane last half-hour. Tom Kenny (also known as Spongebob) voices the hysterical duo Skids and Mudflap; their every line of dialogue is witty and sarcastic but never over-the-top and always successful. Hugo Weaving gets a huge bump up in characterization and by the end we understand Megatron's motives, even if we don't agree with them. Finally Tony Todd does wonderfully evil work as mega honcho Decepticon leader president of the title (you'll figure it out).

Films like "Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen"--which represents this year's equivalent to "Wanted" in terms of being a masterpiece of trashy entertainment--are praiseworthy for being what they're meant to be and must not be criticized for what elitist critics think it "should be." You either understand Bay's filmmaking style or you don't. You know who you are. For me, though, it's easily superior to the already-excellent first film. Now we must wait for the third installment, and my hopes are they keep up what they're already doing and do not add too many villains. We already have two in this movie and that is enough. Maybe something different for a while. For now, Bay has made his best film, a masterwork in explosive cinema and one of the best action pictures of the decade.

Tonight

"Transformers" was awesome. "Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen" should be awesomer. Reviews are awful, which means this'll be a lot of fun. "Dumb-as-rocks but massively entertaining" is the highly accurate phrase Actionman would choose.

The Great Films: An Introduction

I will not make hyperbolic claims that I am any authority on film. I have not seen very many movies in comparison to other critics. But the forty films in this series are some of the most important experiences I've ever had in the medium. Are there modern films? Yes, all the way up to this year. Are there omissions? For sure, especially of films like "Citizen Kane" or "Casablanca" or "The Wizard of Oz." But there are more rewarding experiences than those, in my opinion, as brilliant as those are. I've also changed it pretty drastically from last September's list. And I have a few rules for myself (for instance, now I don't allow myself any series to be included, like "The Lord of the Rings" or "Star Wars")

Film is one of the most important media in existence. There is no hyperbole in saying that movies will be around till the end of time, even if they are not made anymore. Films like the ones I have chosen are instrumental in showing perfectly the kind of art that can be made when every aspect of the medium is put to perfect use.

So...join me on my personal journey through the echelon of filmmaking.

Next post: #40-36. Should be on fairly soon, I think.

New Blog

I've created a blog for the dissection and parsing of Armond White's reviews. Visit it here.

On P.T. Anderson

I must confess that two years ago today I wouldn't have been able to tell you one of the films that 39-year-old directing genius Paul Thomas Anderson directed. Then I saw "There Will Be Blood" and was interested, to say the very least. Over the past three weeks, I have seen two other films from him, and both have touched me deeply, both as a person and as a film critic.

The first film I saw was "There Will Be Blood" (***1/2), which is as flawed a masterpiece as any. It is a work of nihilism and despair--"mad genius" was what main actor Daniel Day-Lewis called it in an interview. The film has so many themes at work, so many ideas, that it's ashame, if forgivable that the film falls apart in the final act. Oh, the themes are working. The actors are acting. But it especially has a cold efficiency that didn't suit the beginning 150 minutes. And what a section those 150 minutes were. The film began as one of the truly great films in American history, something of a new "Citizen Kane," and ended as a slightly overrated (in the midst of all the hubbub, at least) curiosity of a high order. The film is as close to perfect as any imperfect movie that has been released since "The Fountain."

It's strange to consider that, with its electrifying, monumentally terrifying performance from Daniel Day-Lewis that ranks as one of the best performances by an actor in the history of cinema, "There Will Be Blood," for me, is somewhat inferior to its immediate predecessors.

"Punch-Drunk Love" (****) is so much more than just the best Adam Sandler movie ever made. It's a starkly realistic and intricately written romantic comedy that works on multiple levels and never misses a step. Sandler is indeed the best he's ever been (and could possibly be) in the film, but he doesn't carry his humorous antics. No, the antics are less desperate here, more dramatic, more believable. His bursts of outrage or breakdowns of nerve are sheer loneliness, the signs of which are trapped in a man unable (or is it unwilling?) to let go. And Emily Watson is utterly luminous as the woman who barges into Sandler's life and messes it up--in a good way. This is one of the best films of the decade, true and deep and sad and lovely.

"Magnolia" (****), which I watched tonight, is one of the most important and potently powerful moviewatching experiences of my lifetime. What unfailingly rings true is the fragility of life that Anderson is able and willing to bring across in this massive character epic, literally (not figuratively) flawless filmmaking for over three hours. With its career-best performances by William H. Macy, John C. Reilly, Julianne Moore, and Philip Baker Hall, as well as brilliant and well-rounded character work from Tom Cruise, Philip Seymour Hoffman (as per usual for him), and Melora Walters, "Magnolia" is not a film to miss out on. If you love movies, any kind, you owe it to yourself to seek out the blistering and haunting masterpiece that Anderson wrought. I won't say it's the best film I've ever seen, but it's sure as heck one of 'em. (More to come on "Magnolia" in my 40 Best Films of All Time series.)

Just thought I'd share. Anderson apparently has a project called "Desperadoes" in the works. I'm there. He could remake "Bratz" and I'd go. He's an incredible talent and one of today's most diverse directors.

Soon to Come...

As I've seen many a film since past September's posted list of the 25 greatest films ever made, I figured it's time to update. The new list, a collection of 40 films that I, for various reasons, hold near and dear to my heart. The oldest film on the list is from 1920s. The newest is from this decade. Its layout will be paragraph-long coverage of five films each post It's a wide array, carefully selected, but it's one of those personal lists that can be argued in many, many ways. I welcome it. And I look forward to it. Look for the list to start in a few days. (Below is a sample of five of the films included.)

Review: Land of the Lost (zero stars)

Directed by Brad Silberling
Cast: Will Ferrell, Danny McBride, Anna Friel, John Boylan, Jorma Taccone, Bobb'e J. Thompson, Matt Lauer
Voice Cast: Leonard Nimoy
2009--101 minutes




I'm not quite sure how to talk about "Land of the Lost" in a civilized way, without rambling on in an aimless review filled to the brim with curse words in my head that most people don't even know exist. Since this blog is meant to be family-friendly for those who desperately want to read civilized reviews, I will try my best, but note that this is incredibly edited from what is going through my head right now. Truth is, I want very much for the makers of "Land of the Lost" to personally refund my ticket. Considering that the ticket was free, I think my point has been made. And I'm pretty sure that I littered that ticket onto the floor of the men's bathroom in Borders. "Land of the Lost" made me nearly fuming-mad as many times as, say, "In the Name of the King: A Dungeon Siege Tale" last year, "Bratz" and "Dragon Wars" the year before, and "Alex Rider: Operation Stormbreaker" and "My Super Ex-Girlfriend" the year before that, except that this may be the most disappointing of the lot.

Considering that director Brad Silberling has made an affecting human drama ("Moonlight Mile") and two subversively dark family films ("Casper" and "Lemony Snicket's A Series of Unfortunate Events"), he is one of my favorite modern directors. But "Land of the Lost" is an unspeakable mistake on his part. The movie has to do with Dr. Rick Marshall, a scientist apparently inept in everything that has the word "social" in front of it, and as shown in the embarrassing, cringe-inducing opening interview with an obviously bored Matt Lauer, he has written a book about how time warps could, in theory, work. Three years later, no one believes him and he is stranded to teaching some science class to creepy children with too much knowledge about human female anatomy. Then he...




Oh, I give up. Trying to understand "Land of the Lost" is like trying to teach a 2-year-old what the word "physics" means. You're gonna get a blank stare and possibly kill some of the child's brain cells in the process. Really, that's how the movie is as an entity itself. With this movie, nothing resonates, nothing satiates (not even the most undiscriminating of viewers will be able to enjoy themselves), and nothing amuses. Not even Danny McBride comes out unscathed. Normally McBride's line delivery is spot-on (as in "Pineapple Express" and "Tropic Thunder"), but considering his normal R-rated pedigree, I'd say his thankless role as Will Stanton is a huge step down.

To cover the movie's failed aesthetics would take a college thesis paper, not a paragraph, but I'll again try my best. The cinematography by the normally reliable Dion Beebe (he shot 2004's best film, "Collateral") is abnormally hideous, shrouding everything in ugly yellows and oranges. Then again, no color would've worked, so maybe Beebe should be cut some slack. The musical score by Michael Giacchino is awful, pretty much a slap in the face after his amazing work on "Star Trek." Apparently Giacchino can be a gutless hack whenever the project is this bad. The visual effects are supposed to be cheesy, but an effort is actually made to make them believable sometimes, which defeats the purpose. Thus, they just become as awful and annoying as the rest of the picture. In this way, last summer's underrated "Journey to the Center of the Earth" was much more impressive, never losing sight of the fact that it was dumb. At least it didn't misplace its humor, like "Land of the Lost" does.




The acting is hopeless. I already mentioned McBride's lack of material to deliver (though he's not bad in the role, per se). Will Ferrell is awful as Rick Marshall, in a way he's never been. None of the characters has anything to work with, as far as characteristics or even caricatures, but Ferrell especially embarrasses himself in scenes like one in which he drinks a bottle of dinosaur pee while splashing it on himself. The scene has no payoff (unlike an unbearably hilarious and quite similar scene in last year's "Superhero Movie" that culminates in urine being sprayed sprinkler-style onto a bedroom floor), thus no attempt is made to give us a reason to laugh. Anything can be funny in the right context, but no context exists under Silberling's tasteless and indistinctive direction.

Special mention must go to Jorma Taccone for doing the impossible: he makes the ape-man Cha-Ka seem endearing and sweet at the audience's first sight and then creates one of the most despicable, overused, and repugnant movie characters of the last twenty years, so obnoxious that he could take the previous crown held by Jar-Jar Binks in the annals of Hated Movie Characters. Cha-Ka is nothing more than a gimmick--a bad one--and every time he's on screen I cringed, especially with his incessant feeling-up of Anna Friel's breasts. The only person that doesn't make you wanna tear out your eyeballs is Friel, ironically, though she's not very good, either. Even Leonard Nimoy turns up in a voice cameo, but it's much ado about nothing.




Something like "Land of the Lost" comes about rarely. It is one of those films that made me very nearly lose faith in the cinema. All I could do during film were three things: 1) count the cobwebs forming on the screen; 2) wonder what sort of criminal acts Brad Silberling & Co. should be guilty of; and 3) think happier thoughts, like the sweet respite of being trampled by spiky-shoed horses followed by wild boars. By the end, I couldn't wait to leave the theater and breathe some fresh air. The problem is, zero star films are ones that I don't soon forget. The thought of playing scenes from "Land of the Lost" in my head is terrifying to consider. This is the worst film of the year. Not "the year so far," you'll notice. I don't think it'll get any worse than this.

Love It

I love Eminem. Just love his music, for no apparent reason. He's shocking, appalling, controversial, incredibly potty-mouthing, and never-compromising. This is the CD cover for "Relapse," which is for me the best album of 2009 so far.

I'm not gonna "review" it, but three songs really caught my attention: "My Mom," "Medicine Ball," and "Beautiful." All pretty much masterpieces of rap music, especially the absolutely rip-roaring hilarious "Medicine Ball," which goes into places that even Eminem has never gone to. It's amazing what this dude gets away with.

Review: Terminator Salvation (*1/2)

Directed by McG

Cast: Sam Worthington, Christian Bale, Moon Bloodgood, Anton Yelchin, Jadagrace, Bryce Dallas Howard, Helena Bonham Carter, Common, Ivan G'Vera, Michael Ironside, Jane Alexander, Terry Crews, Chris Browning

Voice Cast: Linda Hamilton

2009--130 minutes

Rated PG-13 (sci-fi violence, language)

"Terminator Salvation" is a terrible film. That takes a moderate amount of meditation. Doesn't it belong to the famed series birthed by the visionary director James Cameron, he of "Aliens" and "Titanic?" Yes, the series began in 1984 with the wildly fun "The Terminator," which acted as both a massively entertaining sci-fi film and a terrifying vision of a post-apocalyptic battle between humans and robots. 1991's "Terminator 2: Judgment Day" was even better and is considered by many to be a fulcrum achievement in summer entertainments; I don't disagree, as it is one of my personal favorite science fiction films. 2003's "Terminator 3: Rise of the Machines" was considerably less liked and has its share of detractors; I am not in this group, as I thought that the film was that year's best summer blockbuster, a virtually breathless cavalcade of high-stakes action and more than a bit of the intrigue the previous films held.

In comparison, "Terminator Salvation" feels like nothing more than a copy of a copy of the previous films, plagued with an almost kid-friendly PG-13 rating that stunningly compromises what James Cameron and Jonathan Mostow (director of the third film) had set as the standard for what makes a film in this series work. Not only does director McG's dully realized vision not work as a "Terminator" film; it doesn't even satisfy as a meaty sci-fi extravaganza. The earlier films were both taut and fittingly epic, encompassing their stories gracefully and rarely, if ever, missing a beat. The highly anticipated fourth film, however, provides a convoluted story that attempts to equal the astonishing first three films in scope. It comes up drastically short.

The year is 2018. The war prophesied to have ravaged the Earth is currently taking place and a resistance against the machines has been formed by John Connor. As this war goes on, Connor continues to look for his father, Kyle Reese, in order to save him from a terrible death at the hands of the machines; if they kill him, there would be no future anymore. Meanwhile a former prisoner named Marcus Wright has donated himself to science upon his lethal injection years earlier and in return gotten a makeover in the form of a half-robotic/half-human body. Before long, Connor and Wright will team up to save Reese from the robots and, hopefully, make the future a better place for all.

From frame one, "Terminator Salvation" screams of mediocrity. From the plotting, which is much more confused than I just made it sound, to the action sequences, which bore and numb the viewer in the way that Michael Bay's films have been wrongfully accused of doing, the film just doesn't work. The cinematography by Michael Fitzgerald and Shane Hurlbut is among the worst of the year, shrouding everything in a dank sort of darkness that works against the themes presented. This is a film that could have looked incredible under the hand of someone like the great Emmanuel Lubezki, who memorably shot the similarly apocalyptic "Children of Men" a few years ago, but instead this is a film during which I felt like closing my eyes. The screenplay by John Brancato and Michael Ferris purports to be about something deeper than it ends up being, but doesn't even begin to scratch the surface of the admittedly intriguing themes present.

Visual effects work is impressive across the board, especially in the otherwise unremarkable action sequences, and never look less than impressive. These effects are in the service, however, of a vanity project that never takes off as well as planned--never. Not one time did I believe in anything that was happening on screen due to the aforementioned screenplay. Still, aesthetically, the effects work. As far as acting goes, the only standout is Sam Worthington, who envelops the character of Marcus Wright with a humanity that wouldn't otherwise make sense with the character at hand; indeed, Marcus is the only character in the film with either a discernible quality or even three dimensions.

In contrast to Worthington, who is the saving grace among the performers, Christian Bale has never been worse, dismayingly playing John Connor as a humorless bore with no humanity whatsoever. Gone is the sarcasm of Edward Furlong's committed performance in the 1991 film, as well as Nick Stahl's three-dimensional vulnerability in the 2003 installment. Bale also looks bored and disinterested. Apparent complications on set and his quarrels with Shane Hurlbut evidently afffected his mood, and it shows. Other performances, such Moon Bloodgood's as the only person to give Marcus considerable affection or Bryce Dallas Howard in the stock Worried Wifey role, are so inconsequential as to not be there. Even worse offenders are rapper-turned-actor Common, former Starship Trooper Michael Ironside, Anton Yelchin in the crucial role of Kyle Reese and a nearly nonexistent Helena Bonham Carter, all turning up for maybe five minutes between them and never leaving a good impression.

Films like "Terminator Salvation" are disappointing for many, many reasons, and it's a shame that an entry into one of the most beloved series of films out there is the worst movie this year's had to offer thus far (even beating out something like "Hannah Montana: The Movie," which at least wasn't completely boring). It's bereft of a brain and a soul, and even when the last action sequence in the movie works, it's only out of a sick pleasure of seeing something that liberally steals the occurrences of the innovative and genuinely exciting finale of "Terminator 2: Judgment Day." Even Arnold himself shows up in a shameless ploy to cash in on those previous films (and his appearance is horridly incorporated, to boot). What a mess "Terminator Salvation" was, and how tragic.

Really Quick

"Terminator Salvation" (*1/2) is a very bad film. In-depth thoughts later, once I get my thoughts in such an order as to write it in a review, but the thing was a disaster and the worst film so far this year. The cinematography was ugly and indistinct, the action dull and poorly staged, and Christian Bale's performance something close to awful. What a mess.

Next week brings Pixar's newest, "Up," which is getting raves from Cannes Film Festival. Can't wait.

Essay Review: "Star Trek" (****)

Directed by J.J. Abrams
Cast: Chris Pine, Zachary Quinto, Karl Urban, Zoe Saldana, John Cho, Simon Pegg, Eric Bana, Anton Yelchin, Bruce Greenwood, Leonard Nimoy, Winona Ryder, Ben Cross, Jacob Kogan, Jimmy Bennett, Chris Hemsworth, Jennifer Morrison, Spencer Daniels, Rachel Nichols, Tyler Perry, Clifton Collins Jr., Deep Roy.
2009--127 minutes

Rated PG-13 (sci-fi violence, sexual content)


Color me neither a Trekkie nor a Trekker. It isn't that I never liked the late Gene Roddenberry's magnum sci-fi opus. I'm just more of a "Star Wars" guy. Grew up as one and that may never change. "Star Trek," however, has been just as famous as George Lucas' monumental addition to the sci-fi genre, an entity that graced the television screen for 13 years as "Star Trek" (from 1966 to 1979, with a nearly-unwatched animated series running from '73 to '75), "Star Trek: The Next Generation" (from 1987 to 1994, and in my experience the best series in the group), "Star Trek: Deep Space Nine" (from 1993 to 1999), "Star Trek: Voyager" (from 1995 to 2001, of which I've never watched one episode), the excellent "Star Trek: Enterprise" (from 2001 to 2005), and the failed "Star Trek: New Voyages" that ran for six episodes in 2004. The saga has also spun six movies out of the original Kirk/Spock years--1979's "Star Trek: The Motion Picture," 1982's "Star Trek: The Wrath of Khan" (a brilliant film and the only one I've seen of the pre-Picard years), 1984's "Star Trek III: The Search for Spock," 1986's "Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home," 1989's infamously bad "Star Trek V: The Final Frontier," and 1991's "Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country." Then Patrick Stewart's Jean-Luc Picard was introduced. Him I'm more familiar with, as I came to love the 1987 series that starred Stewart (I watched it faithfully when I was younger). There were four movies that spun out of this branch of the saga--1994's "Star Trek: Generations," 1996's "Star Trek: First Contact" (the best of the Picard films), 1998's underrated "Star Trek: Insurrection," and 2002's craptastic "Star Trek: Nemesis." After the latter film bombed with critics and audiences, with a disappointing box-office intake to boot, it was rightfully believed that "Star Trek" was a dead entity.


Forgive the length of that first paragraph for the sheer amount of television and film versions that a decidedly cheesy '60s series spawned, but visionary producer J.J. Abrams's reboot, simply titled "Star Trek" and based off the original series starring William Shatner and Leonard Nimoy, answers the question I've always had: why is this series famous? The characters of the original show are of the two-dimensional type and sometimes quite hard to relate to, the special effects are of the sort that you laugh at now because they are see-through by today standards (though certainly not by the standards of 1966), and the sci-fi tale it tells is as generic as they come, even in those days. Thoughts ran rampant in my head in 2006 when I learned that they would be revamping the saga; thoughts like, "After the failures of the previous two movies and 1998's awe-inspiringly bad 'Lost in Space,' another adaptation of a '60s TV show, why in the world would they try this?"

Well, come three years later, J.J. Abrams, that genius producer of TV shows like "Lost" and "Fringe" and the 2008 monster-movie-from-a-video-camera masterwork "Cloverfield," as well as reboot director of 2006's action-packed "Mission: Impossible III," has trumped our expectations and made the definitive "Star Trek" experience that could equal the influence that "Star Wars" had in 1977. This is an astonishing gem of a motion picture, mixing fun with pathos to great effect. Visual effects run rampant--as they should--and the achievement is nothing less than a landmark in the medium, much like 2005's "King Kong" and 2007's "Transformers" were, except that they are more defined and more seamless than what those films had to offer in the F/X field. "Star Trek" far surpasses the latter film and just about equals the first in terms of entertainment value, with unbearably exciting action sequences that further the story and enhance the characters. If this is to spawn remakes of a few of the older films as rumored, I welcome it with open arms. Abrams has created a new American masterpiece that works as science fiction and as a rousing blast of popcorn-munching, Coca Cola-guzzling summer movie extravagance.




The film opens with a bang as George Kirk captains the Federation starship Enterprise into an ensuing battle with a Romulan mining ship. He doesn't make it out alive, valiantly dying in a suicide mission/rescue attempt that leaves the opposing ship crippled, but not before his wife births a son, whom they name James. Fast forward twenty or so years. James Kirk is an unhappy guy who is recognized as George's son by Christopher Pike, the current Enterprise captain. Reluctantly, James joins the space academy which Pike is the principal of, along with "Bones" McCoy and Uhura. Meanwhile on the planet Vulcan, Spock dismisses an opportunity to be on council and joins the Federation instead. When Kirk and Spock meet on a mission to disconnect a drill that is endangering the planet Vulcan, things are not good between them, due to a natural rivalry between the races. But their rivalry will have to wait, as a villain from both their pasts threatens to end the lives of those closest to them.

You know that feeling you got when you first watched "Star Wars" or "Indiana Jones," the feeling that the movie you're seeing will define the way you look at movies in the future? The former did that for me at the age of four, when I regarded it with a sort of awe. The sheer spectacle of Lucas' first film absolutely amazed me, and every time I see it, the film reinforces why I love movies (even the prequels have that effect on me, if at a slightly smaller level). "Indiana Jones" did that for me the following year, when it was released on a special edition video that Dad immediately bought. Both franchises have been incredibly dear to me as both a critic and as a lover of film.



Shock of all shocks, "Star Trek" does the same thing, which is a big surprise after my history with the franchise (or substantial lack thereof). The movie just works, much in the same way that "King Kong" did in 2005 and just as well. The film is pure entertainment for 127 glorious minutes, but there are themes at work here, characters that are surprisingly three-dimensional, and a script that never talks down to the audience and consistently surprises with revelatory plot turns (especially a big shocker around 3/4 of the way into it). Roberto Orci and Alex Kurtzman are the go-to guys to make intelligent action films, as proven by their oeuvre, which has included "The Island," "Mission: Impossible III," and "Transformers." Having written another of this summer's biggest flicks, "Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen," it's evident that Orci and Kurtzman have complete ownage of tentpole event films. They have a huge future ahead of them (as long as they don't pull another "The Legend of Zorro"). Their writing here, however, is far above anything they've done before. Much like siblings Christopher and Jonathan Nolan beat the odds last year with "The Dark Knight," Orci and Kurtzman have done something that they never quite did before: they never lose sight of the bigger picture and never miss a step in their labyrinthine plotting.

The film rides on the casting, and it is perfect. Chris Pine has never had a role to call his own, except for his apparently breathtaking performance as a Neo-Nazi in "Smokin' Aces," a film I did not see (nor do I especially want to). The film that brought him to light was 2006's godawful Lindsay Lohan-starrer "Just My Luck," where he played a dimwitted, unlikable character put through awkwardly staged bouts of bad luck. Here he nothing less than comes into his own, bringing humanity and humor to what would otherwise be a stock action-hero role. Zachary Quinto, on the other hand, in a role destined to remind one of Billy Crudup's Dr. Manhattan in "Watchmen," endows the character of Spock with the Vulcan lack of emotion, yet his character is the most heartfelt. The reason Quinto works so well as Sylar on TV's "Heroes" is that his facial expressions are an array of pure evil anyway it turns. The same can be said about Spock's ultimate warmth and vulnerability, despite having the appearance of a hardened war veteran.



Coming up with the best performances in the film are a revelatory Karl Urban as "Bones" McCoy and Eric Bana, pure evil after a string of nice-guy roles as villainous Nero. Urban is known as Eomer from the "Lord of the Rings" films and Kirill from "The Bourne Supremacy." This being his first role as a pleasant person, it must be stated that Urban is the incredibly strong here. His voice inflections are almost creepily close to the original's DeForest Kelley, his line readings on target, and I don't know this for certain, but was Kirill/Eomer actually making jokes work? Bana, so awful in the disastrous "Hulk" from a few years back, has made his comeback role as far as summer films go. Nero is the best villain for anything since Joker in "The Dark Knight" (not that that's saying much), and he comes across as having a twisted humanity and a reason--not an excuse--for wanting peace, especially considering his views. The guy is wicked smart and incredibly coldhearted, and unexpectedly enough, Bana makes that aspect work wonders.

Smaller performances also make big impressions, including Simon Pegg, reminding us why he's one of the funniest actors in the business as Scotty, Zoe Saldana, emanating goodness of heart as Uhura, John Cho and Anton Yelchin, as faithful button-pushers Sulu and Chekhov, and Bruce Greenwood in his best performance thus far in his career as former captain Christopher Pike. Even smaller roles include Jacob Kogan and Jimmy Bennett, leaving strong impressions as younger versions of Spock and Kirk, while Winona Ryder and Ben Cross are incredible in their ever-so-brief roles as Spock's human mother and Vulcan father. Finally, former Spock himself Leonard Nimoy appears at the half-way point and lingers in memory beyond the amazing end credits; this is not just a gimmicky cameo but a real, heartfelt performance from a person who is synonymous with the original "Star Trek."


Technical aspects are sterling across the board, but the most noteworthy aspects are the visual effects, the musical score, and the cinematography. The effects work here, as I earlier noted, are nothing less than angelic in nature. For a film so dependent on effects, the filmmakers had to crank out the most impressive visuals they could for basically 98% of the time, and they don't let us down--ever. I would pick a memorable shot, but that's like a parent choosing a favorite child. Simply put, there is no one shot that rises above the rest (although the implosion of a planet is a masterpiece of a shot, both in its visuals and astonishing sound work). The film makes a new meaning for the term "Oscar-worthy visuals." The musical score of the original series and movies has been remastered to great effect by J.J. Abrams regular Michael Giacchino, and it's a hopeful shoo-in for Best Original Score at the 2010 Oscars. The cinematography by Daniel Mindel is amazing, in both the shots that are entirely made up of special effects and the more intimate shots of human interaction.



Movies like "Star Trek" are released once in a blue moon. Sure, there were "The Dark Knight" and "Watchmen" that took the time-worn superhero genre and shook things up to create deep, thoughtful, penetrating stories of dark characters and the skewed ideas of good and evil. "Star Trek" lives to entertain us, and it does that perfectly. But there's something deeper at work that what audiences are probably expecting. The advertisements are right; this isn't your father's "Star Trek." It's something much, much better. What "Star Trek" achieves is a completely altered definition of the term "summer tentpole," and like the "Star Wars" films did for yours truly, it may define another four-year-old's idea of what a movie is and push them to watch even more. It's simply that good, that influential, and that fun. That's right. "Star Trek" has turned from a childhood curiosity to a defining film in my movie-watching experience.

2009: A Rundown (so far)

I've now seen ten films from 2009. I'll be updating this every end of the month from now on.

In descending order of brilliance:

Zack Snyder's "Watchmen" (****)
Alex Proyas' "Knowing" (****)
Pierre Morel's "Taken" (****)
Gavin Hood's "X-Men Origins: Wolverine" (***1/2)
Tom Tykwer's "The International" (***1/2)
Letterman/Vernon's "Monsters vs. Aliens" (***1/2)
Justin Lin's "Fast & Furious" (***)
Andy Fickman's "Race to Witch Mountain" (***)
Paul McGuigan's "Push" (**1/2)
Peter Chelsom's "Hannah Montana: The Movie" (**)

So, there you have it. Not as many by this time as last year, but that's because I'm in college now.

Should be seeing "Star Trek" very, very soon. This summer should be a lot of fun.

Happy moviegoing!

Review: X-Men Origins: Wolverine (***1/2)

Directed by Gavin Hood

Cast: Hugh Jackman, Danny Huston, Liev Schreiber, Ryan Reynolds, Lynn Collins, Dominic Monaghan, Taylor Kitsch, Kevin Durand, Will i Am, Scott Adkins, Daniel Henney, Julia Blake, Tim Pocock, Troye Sivan, Max Cullen, Patrick Stewart, Michael-James Olsen.

2009--107 minutes

Rated PG-13 (violence, partial nudity)

"X-Men Origins: Wolverine" is nothing if not the biggest surprise I've had at the movies this year (tied with the unexpectedly masterful "Knowing"). The trailers were largely lacking and made the movie appear campy instead of intriguing. Lo and behold, it's completely the other way around. An enthralling entertainment at best, "X-Men Origins: Wolverine" had potential to be a disaster, but instead, director Gavin Hood has crafted the second-best entry in the installment, after 2003's unbeatable "X2," and certainly rights the wrongs made by Brett Ratner in 2006's disastrous "X-Men: The Last Stand." Whereas the latter film was simultaneously turgid in pacing and too short in length (104 minutes), this film, only three minutes longer at 107, makes the most out of it and presents visually dazzling action sequences and surprisingly effective character developing for the title superhero.

As a child, Jimmy Logan killed his father. This accidental murder is a chilling first five minutes, provocative and insightful about Jimmy's future path. His brother, Victor, practically raises him, until they join a possibly criminal pact of vigilantes--among them, Deadpool, Bolt, Blob, Agent Zero, and Wraith--who do anything and everything, including killing innocents, to get what they need. That is, until they cross the line from Jimmy's point of view, forcing him to leave the group.

Fast forward six years. Jimmy lives happily in the Canadian Rockies with wife Kayla, until she is brutally murdered by Victor as a way to get back at Jimmy for leaving the group (don't worry, as I'm not ruining anything). This pushes Jimmy to the edge, and he teams up with former group leader Stryker, who presents him the option of injecting adamantium, a super-hard metal, into his bones and body. Jimmy, now called "Wolverine" and practically indestructible, joins forces with former team member Wraith and villain-turned-ally Gambit to bring down Stryker, Victor, and whoever else gets in his way.

"X-Men Origins: Wolverine" impresses in a big way, with cleanly plotted storytelling and a distinct visual style that works in a completely different way than its predecessors. Also helping matters is a great cast, led by a fiercely felt performance by Hugh Jackman as Jimmy Logan. Jackman has never been better thus far in this role, which has understandably been drawn out to feature length after years of being shoved to the side in a supporting part. Aiding Jackman are supporting performances, by Liev Schreiber as Victor and Danny Huston as Stryker, that are meatier than they may appear at the outset. Schreiber comes up with the best performance in the film, oozing menace and sarcasm as Victor. Huston perhaps has less to do (simply act suspiciously throughout the film), but that's necessary, as the audience is never certain of his intentions. Smaller roles leave a deeper impression than normal, most notably an especially on-target Ryan Reynolds as the lightning-fast Deadpool.

The film is not perfect. The choice to include famed "X-Men" character Gambit turns out to be nothing that special, even if Taylor Kitsch plays the character well. Gambit is, sadly, extraneous and not nearly as much of an impact as the others who help out Wolverine through the course of the picture. Also, the CGI work is a bit iffy in spots and somewhat takes away (though not much) from the razzle-dazzle; for a perfect example, take the trailer's money shot of Wolverine hanging out of a jeep and ripping his claws through another jeep. The shot is amazingly bad, but all is forgiven as the scene loses none of its armchair-gripping suspense. The finale, however, is absolutely flawless in its integration of action and effects work.

In the end, "X-Men Origins: Wolverine" is no more than a great actioner for the Friday night crowd, but it has something deeper at work in its thematics and characterization. Wolverine was never the most likeable hero, but with Hugh Jackman's brilliant performance and David Benioff and Skip Woods's near-cerebral take on the character, he's now at least understood. It's a tragic story that surrounds Jimmy Logan/Wolverine, and director Gavin Hood has embraced that story full-on, despite a few flaws, with pathos, intelligence, and pure, action-laden fun. If Hood stays, these origin stories may be huge fun to watch.

Review: Hannah Montana: The Movie (**)

Directed by Peter Chelsom

Cast: Miley Cyrus, Billy Ray Cyrus, Lucas Till, Margo Martindale, Jason Earles, Emily Osment, Melora Hardin, Vanessa Williams, Moises Aria, Mitchel Musso, Jared Carter, Peter Gunn, Beau Billingslea, Barry Bostwick, Emily Reaves, Katrine Hagger Smith, Taylor Swift, Jane Carr, Jay DeMarcus, Gary LeVox, Darrell Hammond, JoeDon Rooney, Tyra Banks.

2009--102 minutes

Rated G (nothing objectionable)

"Hannah Montana" is one phenomenon I don't understand. Sure, she's appeared on lunchboxes, flip-flops, coloring books, backpacks, and even children's swimsuits, and it's obvious from the sales of her "Best of Both Worlds" concert film last year that she's as famous as anyone in Hollywood right now. But to what end? The Disney Channel television show is as obvious as they come, an obvious, pandering show in which, if the characters had any sort of intelligence, the problems would be solved by the third episode. The movie that it has spawned is thankfully much better, perhaps because the studio audience has been removed or perhaps because director Peter Chelsom provides a decidedly more cinematic feel. However, when judging "Hannah Montana: The Movie" as a standalone film in itself, the whole enterprise crumbles. Even if the film tells a true and sobering message about the dangers of fame taken too far, the low-brow, mean-spirited sense of humor that marred the series, as well as an insulting and misguided last five minutes, ruins any sort of charm that the individual performances and potential thematic relevance that the movie provides.

The film starts with Miley in the midst of her fame and glory as counterpart Hannah Montana, as she performs "Best of Both Worlds" for a audience made only (as far as I could tell) of screaming pre-teen girls. When a British tabloid reporter sneaks into her backstage tent claiming to be writing a piece on the true identity of Hannah Montana, Miley's agent understandably throws him out of the room. This act, multiplied by her missing both her brother's send-off to college and best friend Lilly's huge Sweet 16 bash, causes father Robbie Ray to force Miley into staying with her grandma in Tennessee for two weeks. Meanwhile, Miley must reconsider her future as Hannah Montana.

"Hannah Montana: The Movie" is, I suppose, just about as good a movie that can be made of the series. It is confidently filmed by Peter Chelsom with a distinct indie feel that would work wonders on anything other than this franchise. Simply put, "Hannah Montana: The Movie" is filled to the gills with the type of humor that I have long grown tired of: pratfalls. There are too many of these to count. One enormously painful sequence has Miley as Hannah participating in a cat fight with Tyra Banks...over shoes. No joke. It's never funny, never cute, and always wrongheaded and somewhat violent. The kids may laugh at the exaggeration, but the parents in the audience may wonder why their kids like this sort of stuff. The movie is basically comprised of scenes playing out with ridiculous and moronic character motivations. None of it makes sense. The Hannah-Tyra fight goes on for too long, as does a scene involving Grandma's favorite plates falling off of a china cabinet and one where Miley switches between personas during both an important dinner and a date with old friend Travis.

Is "Hannah Montana: The Movie" completely worthless? No. The film does touch on some important themes regarding the dangers of fame. Two sequences--one where Travis finds out Hannah's true identity, the other the final performance of "The Climb"--are almost lyrical and certainly better than anything else in the movie. Also, there is a performance of "Hoedown Throwdown" in the middle of the movie that is more fun than any of her other performances. It's this kind of energy that's missing, as the rest of the film is lugubrious and turgidly paced. Miley Cyrus is an energetic performer onstage, but her songs as Hannah are all awfully written. She's much better as herself, where she can belt out songs and be just as good as the next. This is most obvious in the aforementioned climactic performance in a scene that would absolutely be the perfect capper to a misguided and empty franchise. The ideas presented by this sequence are deeper felt than expected, but are followed up by a final five minutes that horridly turns everything on its ear and selfishly reverses everything that the franchise claims to be about.

I can understand young girls gobbling this up as it is the end of a saga (no other word for it), but when a movie ends as hypocritically as this one does, the problem stems beyond "target audiences." The problem I had with "Hannah Montana: The Movie" has nothing to do with my gender or age but with pure movie logic. If the ending had stopped with that performance, it might have been a sobering viewpoint on the end of an era. The five minutes following is a section that ruins any sort of realism that the performance held. It would be tragic for young girls to see their idol quit the very thing that made her famous, but it might also open their eyes to the possibilities of real life. "Hannah Montana: The Movie" fails on this count and it's ashame. This could have been a glorious ending. Instead, it ends with a whimper of sheer audience appeasement instead of a tear.

Ten years...

...since the Columbine tragedy. I still remember the shocking story unfolding on TV, almost as much as I remember 9/11. Simply awful that teens could do that. Horrible, horrible thing. My heart goes out to the families on this anniversary.

Welcome to the first of ten specials where I cover the best films I've seen in the 2000-2009 decade (technically 2010 is in the next decade). In each year, I will pick three films I loved or was affected by for various reasons. It's a very diverse group. This month's special covers a year from which I have not seen very many films. I have seen my fair few, however, so this is my two cents:

2000:

The Cell

Directed by Tarsem

This is a mind-trip if I’ve ever seen one but equally brilliant and, in the end, oddly touching and resonant, as well as the best film that the year had to offer. Tarsem (who made his debut with this film after years of directing music videos and followed up with “The Fall,” which is positively normal by comparison) juggles two different genres to great effect. One is more prevalent and more disturbing, and that is the “Silence of the Lambs”-type procedural drama that takes precedence and ends up being even more nihilistic than the Hannibal Lecter tale. The other is a highly affecting personal drama.

“The Cell” stars Jennifer Lopez as an F.B.I. agent, tasked with entering the mind of a ruthless and sadistic serial killer. What she finds is a diseased mind, ravaged by memories of a molesting father and alcoholic, distant mother. Tarsem visualizes his mind as a music video of the most disturbing kind (Marilyn Manson was apparently forever changed by the visions and used similar color schemes from then on), complete with Vincent D’Onofrio, in a miraculous, career-defining, and devastatingly powerful performance that stands as one of the best of the decade, showing up in every possible physique, from bearing horns while wearing an unimaginably long cape to donning a clown outfit covered in what seems to be human blood; D’Onofrio not only sells the performance but also makes it frighteningly believable. Rumors that the film was nearly given the fearful NC-17 rating are believable as well.

Gladiator

Directed by Ridley Scott

A staggering achievement from Ridley Scott—the first of two of Ridley’s films, the other showing up in 2003’s line-up—“Gladiator” was a war movie of the greatest kind, whose violence is ratcheted up to grim levels while it maintains a life-affirming message about honor and courage. It was the best war film since Spielberg’s “Saving Private Ryan” and remains as much today. The performances by Russell Crowe, the late Richard Harris, and an especially on-the-mark Joaquin Phoenix represent what the medieval swashbuckler can do when its actors recite dime-store odes that you can set your watch to and not make them sound that way. “Braveheart,” though perhaps the better film due to more practical effects, did the same exact thing.

“Gladiator” stars Crowe as Maximus, a man whose family is ruthlessly murdered by the egomaniacal ruler of Rome. Maximus has fallen in love with said ruler’s sister, who is victim to an unhealthy relationship with and spawned by her power-hungry brother. The film is simultaneously heartbreaking and heartpumping, a war film that pulsates with a brooding energy and at the same time holds a deep sadness beneath the violence. Technical credits may be strong across the board, but it is ultimately Scott’s direction and the aforementioned acting that stand out.

Requiem for a Dream

Directed by Darren Aronofsky

Every once in a while, there is a film that kicks you in the gut and leaves you reeling. Its graphic depictions of violence or sex or drug use or even profanity may shock and appall you, but you are left thinking for a long time after watching it what its implications were and where its humanity lied. “Requiem for a Dream” is a film like that. As a disturbingly honest, disquietingly beautiful look at the underground world of drugs and prostitution, the film is unforgettable.

I’ve seen two films by Darren Aronofsky: this one and the fascinatingly strange “The Fountain,” a film I have long referred to as the most flawed masterpiece ever created. “Requiem for a Dream,” however, isn’t flawed, as far as I can see. Along with “The Cell,” it is a film I have only seen once and plan to keep it that way. Both films are unimaginably grim and, to some, repulsive. It is not a film to sit down and watch one boring Sunday afternoon. What it is, however, is a highly rewarding experience for anyone willing to take a step back from the content and view the film on its own merits. Aronofsky apparently opted to refuse the threatened NC-17 and to go with no rating. Although I can see where the MPAA was coming from, I disagree with the choice they could have made. Although it does have more nudity that any film I have ever seen, it is far from porn. Although it features nearly non-stop sequences of harrowing use of every single drug on the market, it is nowhere near glorification or even exploitation. I would recommend this to drug users, dealers, and suppliers, as well as prostitutes and pimps, and would like to see how drug and prostitution rings are changed after viewing it. My prediction: if everyone involved in those worlds saw it, they would both be businesses no longer.

So, there is my best estimation of the film quality in 2000. It may be different than yours, and there might be films I'm omitting. The first choice would be because, well, to each his own. The second would be because I either haven't seen everything, or haven't seen a certain film in many, many years.

Coming April 23: The Best Films of 2001. That will be a much easier year to cover.

Special Four-Film Review: Little Manhattan, Akeelah and the Bee, Bridge to Terabithia, Penelope

In 2005, 2006, 2007, and 2008, some great cinematic family treasures were released, so I thought I would give my views on four of the most overlooked masterpieces to have come out this decade.

In June of 2005, naught but the day after I saw "War of the Worlds," I was browsing the Internet and came upon a trailer for a movie entitled "Little Manhattan" (****), which at first glance seemed to be a charming and funny story about a really big crush a ten-year-old boy had on an eleven-year-old girl. The downside was that it would only be released in New York and Chicago on September 30 of that year, so I would have to wait on DVD. And I did. Boy, am I glad. "Little Manhattan," unlike many "kid's movies" these days, is gloriously enchanting in a way that few romances are. This is not a film about a crush of the superficial or superfluous kind, but a film about true, pure, unadulterated love. Yes, these are kids, and yes, they are immature in most ways. But weren't we all? More than that, these kids are troubled beyond words, with a longing and deep sadness (but undeniably a sense of real, kiddy joy).

The film was transcendent and ended up, for me, as one of 2005's finest achievements, a transcendent, almost angelic experience. And at its center (like "Bridge to Terabithia," to be talked about in a bit) was a revelatory, career-making performance by Josh Hutcherson. Yes, he of "Journey to the Center of the Earth" gave what I thought was easily an Oscar-worthy performance as the film's male equation of the budding relationship, Gabe, an already world-weary soul who gains a wisdom rarely, if ever, seen in a boy of his age. And newcomer Charlie Ray as Rosemary, the apple of Gabe's eye, is equally brilliant.

Then, not a year later, another highly intelligent near-classic was released in the form of "Akeelah and the Bee" (****). This film was clearly one of the best of its kind since the likes of "Searching for Bobby Fischer" and "Spellbound." An inspirational "intellectual sport" movie stripped down to its base elements, "Akeelah and the Bee," like the other four films in this review, was destined for failure. However, through miraculous performances by Laurence Fishburne and spirited newcomer Keke Palmer, as well as intricate direction by Doug Atchison, the film was a startling success.

Unrelenting in its refusal to give in to conventions, even when the plot itself is as conventional as they come, "Akeelah and the Bee" was more than charming and affecting--it was beautiful and effective. The problem with today's kid audience is that a film like this does not connect well with them. Kids get antsy, see, and movies as low-key and independent as "Akeelah and the Bee" don't come out very often. For me, however, this is something to savor and not to criticize. There is a line between kid film and audience-directed insult. Most films of this kind fall splat into the latter category. "Akeelah and the Bee" (as well as the other films in this category) does not, and thank heavens for that.

In 2007, director Gabor Csupo captured--there is no other way to put it--lightning in a bottle, a kind of rarity of the film genre, dealing with issues of mortality and livelihood and friendship and imagination. That film was the majestic and elegiac "Bridge to Terabithia" (****). It was one of '07's best, featuring another grand central performance by the clearly-talented Josh Hutcherson, who is fastly becomed the male Dakota Fanning of this generation. Hutcherson is utterly revelatory, in a low-key dazzler of an electrifying kid performance as Jess Aarons. Jess is a kid like any other has demons in his own way. He is constantly bullied around, and his dad is not the most personable guy. But then he meets Leslie, an imaginative and worldly wise girl who introduces him to the make-believe world of Terabithia.

But it's so much more than that. Do not, whatsoever, pay attention to the advertising campaign for this film. The fantastical sequences involving overgrown badgers, fairy people, and walking trees take up maybe fifteen minutes of screen time and are largely in the kids' heads. The final twenty minutes of this film are devastating, heartbreaking, and ultimately uplifting like few family films are these days. I think it is safe to say that "Bridge to Terabithia" easily tops the other films in this review on sheer charm and effectiveness (with a strong emphasis on the latter).

And then there's "Penelope" (****). Originally slated for release in October of 2006 after a successful run at Toronto and then inexplicably discarded for a full year and seven months, the film was finally released in the final week of February 2008. I saw it on a complete whim, with no real interest (further tarnished by a scathing review in Entertainment Weekly). I am glad I did. Truly one of the most romantic films to have come out last year, "Penelope" was astounding in its implications above all. Was it predictable? Yes, but only in theory. I found it increasingly difficult to know what would happen ahead of time, perhaps because the actors refused to mug or because the script refused to stick to convention 100% of the time.

The performances matched those of the great recent romances. James McAvoy in particular, doing much better work here than in the wildly overrated "Atonement," was affecting and unexpectedly powerful as Max, the only man for Penelope, a woman whose physical appearance (a snout for a nose) means nothing to Max. Ricci is vulnerable and beautiful onscreen. Her snout-nose is surprisingly not as ugly as others think; perhaps the idea of the nose is more repulsive than the nose itself, something I have always thought was the point the filmmakers were making.

These four films are just simply wonderful examples of the genre. If this article seemed random, it is because I'd been meaning to this all along. Watch these films. They're completely worth it.