Top Twenty of the Decade

Everybody else is doing it, so why can't I? It's all the rage at the end of 2009, and pretty much a pointless endeavor. Most critics and people in general would have two totally different lists, with some films corresponding and some curiously absent. There are way too many good movies to choose from. My list is going to be geared towards the films that I enjoyed the most; and that I could think of sitting here at a computer with my dvd collection nowhere in sight. Not necessarily the best crafted piece of art, or the ones with the best performances, but rather a list of the ten movies I would love to watch over and over again (you'd be surprised what I force myself to sit through over and over). So here it is, my humble top twenty of the first decade of this millennia.

20a. Best In Show: For me this is Christopher Guest and his cast of regulars at their best. Practically every scene is gold and I never get tired of watching it.

20b. Shaun of The Dead: The film that introduced us to Simon Pegg and Nick Frost, and of course director Edgar Wright. I cannot wait for their next collaboration. Hot Fuzz was great as well, but I had to give the nod to Shaun for starting the love affair.

19. Stevie: Steve James gets my vote for best documentarian working today. Why? Because he is so good and just letting the story tell itself. At no time do I ever feel that James is letting his own opinion or bias get in the way. To make Hoop Dreams and Stevie in one life is an amazing feat.

18. Control: While the subject matter of this film makes it a very tough one to re-watch, I couldn't keep it out of the top 20. The performances are top-notch, and of course, Anton Corbijn's imagery is gorgeous. Even for people who have no idea who Joy Division is, it would still be an engrossing film.

17. Heist: Why do I love David Mamet so much? I have no idea, but I do. Out of all the films he has released this decade, I think Heist is the most solid throughout and the most entertaining. Gene Hackman is fantastic in this one.

16. In America: Oh my god I love that movie... That's all I really have to say.

15. Royal Tennenbaums: My favorite entry from arguably the most unique director of our generation. Wes Anderson's films defy any sort of classification and he gets at least one really stellar performance in every film.

14. Let The Right One In: Just check out my previous review of this one. THE BEST VAMPIRE MOVIE. EVER. The cover art never lies.

13. Zodiac: This one has one of the creepiest scenes I've ever witnessed, and its not even that kind of flick. I can't even think about the basement scene without squirming. David Fincher is one of my favorite directors and he was spot on with this one. Mark Ruffalo scored again as well.

12. Lost In Translation: Sofia Coppola: the master of mood. This movie reminds me of a better time, a time before Scarjo didn't know how famous she was going to be and all the annoying things she would say. Her performance is restrained, innocent and very good. Bill Murray is more than we probably ever thought he could be. It is touching, funny and sweet and still fresh every time I see it.

11. Eternal Sunshine of The Spotless Mind: Simply put, it is the best love story of our time (sorry Twilight). Told with an artists brush and child's imagination Eternal Sunshine is just a magnificent film.

10. The Fountain: This is a controversial one, but I was really blown away by The Fountain. The story, the score, the performances, the cinematography and the pacing all just grabbed me and didn't let go. I absolutely loved it. You may hate it, but that's cool.

09. Bourne Supremacy: Oh Jason Bourne, I do hope you and Paul Greengrass will continue to kill people with books and towels in my future. These films are just so badass and Supremacy was the one that took them to the next level. Anyone who doesn't have a problem with Greengrass' shaky cam and hasn't seen United 93 yet, really should. It's pretty startling. For that matter, Bloody Sunday as well.

08. Kill Bill: The Whole Bloody Affair: I can't really even begin to get into it. Just amazing.

07. Amelie: Has there ever been a film more cute, funny, adorable, lovable and graceful than Amelie? Nope. Why was it left off of most critics tops of the decade list? No Idea.

06. Almost Famous: "Hold me closer Tiny Daaaaancer!" "Don't take drugs!" "Hey man, I'm incendiary too." "This explains.. so much." I could go on and on.

05. El Laberinto del Fauno: Guillermo Del Toro is a genius, and Pan's Labyrinth is his best film as a whole. If you haven't seen this yet, please check it out. It is a painfully exquisite movie and is as an adult fairy tale set within post-Civil War Spain. Doesn't that sound intriguing!?

04. UP: Well, we all knew a Pixar film would make the list. My top 3 are UP, Ratatouille and Finding Nemo. A lot of people will choose Wall-E, and while I liked that one too, it didn't do it for me like these other three did. It was hard to choose, but I have to give the nod to Up for the most heart wrenching first ten minutes, Doug and for a whimsy that the other three couldn't match.

03. Punch Drunk Love: Ok ok ok, so look. Punch Drunk Love is one of the most startling, gorgeous and inventive films of the decade and possibly ever. If you don't like it, that's fine,everyone is different. Such is art. PT Anderson molds the moving image and sound (both score and dialogue) together like no one I've ever seen. I could barely catch my breath in the theatre. I gave this the nod over There Will Be Blood because I've watched it probably 6 or 7 times, and while I purchased There Will Be Blood I still haven't brought myself to watch it again.

02. Children of Men: Wow. This one hit me right in the gut. With one or two of the best scenes of all time, breathtaking cinematography, top notch acting and a post-apocalyptic story that seems frighteningly within reach Children of Men was pretty awesome.

01. Inglorious Basterds: Did I put this number one because it was the title I saw most recently? Probably, but I don't care. It is a masterpiece and it deserves to be in the running for number one of the decade. Hate him or love him, Quentin Taratino showed with Basterds that he truly is great and one of the top directors in history.

The best of the rest: I could have easily switched out any from above with any of the titles below. It was close, but in the end, I chose the films I would easily pick up off the shelf and watch again. It was hard leaving Millions down here.

Into the Wild

The Visitor

Millions

Brick

Stranger Than Fiction

A Guide To Recognizing Your Saints

The Fall

Daywatch

Shotgun Stories

Lars and the Real Girl

Me and You and Everyone We Know

The Pianist

25th Hour

Million Dollar Baby

United 93

There Will Be Blood

Wet Hot American Summer

Top Films I Watched In 2009

Best from 2009 I've seen so far (..but mine goes to 11..):

11. The Hangover - I haven't laughed this hard at a movie in a really long time, and that alone allows it to crack the top eleven. It has its flaws, but the highs are very much worth it. God I love Zach Galifianakis.

10. Public Enemies - In no way a perfect film, and in no way Michael Mann's best, but I love Michael Mann and I love Johnny Depp; put them together and mix in a little bad ass John Dillinger story and you have a very fun time.

09. Whip It: I really enjoyed this flick. Everyone is perfect in their roles, and you can tell they had a great time making it. It follows a formula, but then again doesn't, and it really gets you rooting for Bliss. It's funny, its touching and it's true to life.

08. Star Trek - I never liked Star Trek, but now I do. I'm pretty sure that was the intention of this re-boot of the series and it succeeded in every aspect. To be completely cheesy, this was one hell of a ride. It also did a superb job mixing in the old with the new.

07. Funny People - I don't get it, what was everyone's problem with this one? Ok, so its two and a half hours, and its not a movie about a major war...so? This is definitely a drama wrapped up in a crude comedy (but less crude then Apatow's previous outings), and it showcases what Judd Apatow could be as a director. There are some surprisingly beautiful scenes and photography. I loved it, but I'm also a sucker for dramatic Adam Sandler

06. Adventureland: Another true to life coming of age story that really nails it. A great soundtrack, a great cast (can Martin Starr do any wrong?) and Ryan Reynolds is suprisingly not annoying.

05. Coraline: The story isn't really that deep, but it doesn't have to be either. The beauty and artisty of the animation stands alone. Henry Selick delivers another gem and it makes me wonder how much he had to do with the success of The Nightmare Before Christmas (since the Burton directed Corpse Bride, which has the same imagery and story style of Nightmare, was kind of a dud).

04. Where the Wild Things Are: This was exactly what I thought it was going to be. It didn't hit me as hard as I thought it would, but it is a gorgeous piece of filmmaking. As Maurice Sendak says himself, Spike Jonze at no time underestimates children. Not all adults, and not all children will like this, but that doesn't mean it's not a perfect adaptation of the short story.

03. Drag Me To Hell: I have never been this giddy during a movie. Maybe it was just the day I went to see it, maybe it was just a perfect escape, and maybe it really is that good of a fun horror flick. I didn't like it any less the second time, and the opening scene was just as gripping. It's such a great blend of ridiculously over the top horror, humor and jump out at you scares. It made my day, and I hope it makes yours too.

02. Up: If you haven't seen this yet, what are you waiting for!?! It really was a toss up between this and my number one. It's hard to choose between two polar opposite genres (which will be interesting in this years Oscars as well). The story is so touching, the opening ten minutes is actually gut wrenching and doug is one of the greatest animated characters ever (but I'm biased because I love dogs). Go see it now!

01. Inglourious Basterds: To confirm the ponder in your last line of the film; yes this is your masterpiece Quentin Tarantino. Pulp Fiction is great, Kill Bill is great, but Inglourious Basterds is an instant classic that in my opinion surpasses both of those previous outings. There are probably three scenes in this film that would be in my top ten of all time. The acting is top notch, and Taratino's dialogue driven scenes never become too much. It's a perfect balance of period drama and action. Undoubtedly the best of the year, and I not only hope Cristoph Waltz gets best supporting actor, but it should be in the running for best picture as well. It would be pretty fun to see what QT has to say during an acceptance speech.

The Best from the past that I watched this year:

05. Lars and the Real Girl (07')

04. Katyn (07')

03. Rachel Getting Married (08')

02. Snow Angels (07')

01. Let the Right One In (08')

The rest of 2009 that Sam has kept me from watching but I'm excited to see.

The Road

An Education

Fantastic Mr. Fox

Ink

Sherlock Holmes - I actually just saw this the day after Christmas. It was good and I can't wait for the sequel, but I wasn't good enough to crack the top 11. Definitely a fun time at the movies.

Trucker

Goodbye Solo

Humpday

9

Big Fan

The Hurt Locker

Food, Inc.

(500) Days of Summer

District 9

A Serious Man

A Single Man

Invictus

Up in the Air

Me and Orson Welles

Repulsion: 3.5 Stars

**I know it seems that I like almost ever movie I watch, but I swear I just know what I like. I'm also not paid for this, so I don't go see every new release. I rarely watch random movies that I don't think I will like, or which receive bad reviews, unless recommended by a trusted friend (although Teresa failed me on The House Bunny) or has an element I know I'm a sucker for (ie: vampires).

Plot: (taken from Criterion's website) Roman Polanski followed up Knife in the Water with this controversial, chilling tale of psychosis. Catherine Deneuve is Carol, a fragile, frigid young beauty cracking up in her London flat when left alone by her vacationing sister. Repulsion is one of cinema’s most shocking psychological thrillers.

I definitely agree with the last sentence of the summary above. Repulsion is surprisingly shocking especially when taken into context of when it was released. We even learn in the supplements that a soft-core pornography distributor looking for a break released the film. While it does desire to repulse us, the film doesn't completely turn the viewer off with it's imagery, but rather pulls us into Carol's mind with a slow build up of tension.

Repulsion can definitely be categorized as an art house film. It is not a title that you're just going to decide to watch again on a Saturday afternoon because it's oh so fun to watch. While it is a bit stuffy at times, Polanski does an excellent job with pacing. He lets this woman slowly unravel in front of you, turning up the tension, the disturbing imagery and pace as the film marches on.

For those who want everything spelled out in black and white (no pun intended) you'll be disappointed with this one. There are subtle hints at time for the reasoning behind Carol's madness, no explanation is ever given, and no background about the character is given either. All we know is that she has a sister, that sister is having an affair with a married man, there is a young gentleman trying to court Carol, and she has a family. The how long's, the why's and the who's are never divulged. That is the point though; your reaction to the events has a lot to do with the meaning of the work. Polanski works with a lot of textures and food imagery to get his point across and even in black and white the nauseating feeling still gets across effectively. I'm sure many papers have been written about the themes of love, sex, subconscious, sensuality, and female oppression etc., found in the film. However, that's not what I'm here for.

Repulsion is a very solid film, and I was happy to discover how much I enjoyed it. I've been catching up on a lot of classics lately, only to find their greatness hasn’t seemed to stand the test of time in my eyes. It isn't the greatest, and it's more of an artistic exercise than anything else, but should definitely be seen by any fan of Polanski or psychological "thrillers" to see where some modern films get their inspiration.

Inglourious Basterds: 4 Stars

Plot: During WWI in Nazi occupied France, a young Jewish girl escapes the brutal assassination of Nazi Col. Hans Landa. Concurrently, a top secret squad called the "Inglourious Basterds" are on a quest to kills as many Nazi's as possible. Three years later the paths of all three cross in a plot to take down all of he high ranking Nazi officials, including Hitler himself, in one fell swoop.

Inglourious Basterds is an excellent film and it's a hell of a lot of fun to boot.

Quentin Tarantino is a diehard movie buff full of, arguably, useless knowledge. He uses this information as inspiration and the foundation for his films, especially Inglourious Basterds. First, the film borrows its name from a 1978 Italian War movie (set during the same time, but with a different plot and correct spelling). Second, one can't help reminisce about The Dirty Dozen while viewing this group of ragtag soldiers. Finally, it opens with a very spaghetti western-esque score, credit sequence and initial scene. In addition to that, there are so many self-realization cinema moments that had me laughing out loud. I don't want to spoil anything, but this is just another reason why his films are so fun to watch for any fan of the medium.

The filmmakers (I chose that word wisely as Tarantino uses the same editor for all his movies, and editing is a far under-appreciated task in the movie industry. I feel this Oscar award should be just as important as directing) have created a World War II dramedy, including campy edits, bursts of ultra-violence and Oscar worthy performances all while staying balanced as a whole. That's not easy to do. The story at the core of the film, which links all of the characters together, could exist in a completely separate film as a successful drama. Basterds could have easily become a caricature of itself with no soul, as the trailer suggests, but Tarantino steers clear of this and constructs a main character that viewers can really connect with and most importantly root for.

Keep an eye on Christoph Waltz during award season. His performance as Col. Hans Landa is unforgettable. He is evil, maniacal, scary and funny all while not being too cartoonish. The casting directors for Tarantino always seem to find great foreign actors for his films that turn in dynamite performances as well. French actress Melanie Laurent as Shoshanna Dreyfus is understated and elegant and almost steals the film without you knowing it.

I'd also like to take this review as an opportunity to discuss the most frequent negative feedback that Tarantino receives, which is the argument that he is all style over substance. I'd just like to say there is nothing wrong with being all style over substance, but I also think his films have more substance that people give him credit for. All of his major works from Jackie Brown through Inglourious Basterds feature empowered female protagonists, and while not all of them are very deep, that fact alone is significant for the history of cinema and will be studied in future film classes.

So to summarize, go see Inglourious Basterds as soon as possible. Its fun, tense, action packed, well crafted/acted and a joy to watch. Oh, and don't be turned off by it's run time, it flew by faster than a lot of one hundred minute dramas out there.

The Hangover: 3 stars

Plot: Four men go to Las Vegas for a bachelor party. Three of them wake up the next day and can't find the groom. Complicating things is that they are so hung over that they can't remember anything, one is missing a tooth, there is a tiger in the bedroom, a baby in the closet and they have a police car instead of the one they drove in with. They have one day to find the groom and find out what happened before the wedding.

The Hangover is an interesting film to review. It is unbalanced and pretty straightforward visually, however there are parts that are pee in your pants funny. Even though there is plenty to fault from a cinematic point of view, it's hard to give a movie that makes you laugh so hard a bad review.

This is a film that I was hoping didn't give away all the funniest moments in the trailer. The Hangover definitely didn't fail me in that aspect. That is why all the points found in the trailer are in my plot summary above. There are plenty more laughs and insane situations that you definitely won't see coming. The interesting thing is that all of this craziness is wrapped up in a pretty straight forward and understandable way, which is kind of refreshing and makes everything that occurred a little more believable.

There is a reason I chose the movie poster above, and that is because Zach Galifianakis absolutely steals the show and is the reason why I would recommend this movie to people outside of the target audience of the studio. His delivery and screen presence is fantastic and I was very happy to see him deliver on the big screen as I've been a fan of his for years. He seems to make even the more immature and vulgar moments more intelligent.

One of the biggest issues I have with The Hangover is it's continued use of offensive words that basically have no point. Those words are the 'F' word for homosexual and the 'R' word for people with a developmental disability. This is one of the problems I had with Todd Phillips' Old School as well, during the opening scene when Luke Wilson enters the taxi. These words are more casually tossed around in The Hangover, but still with no real comedic point. I can imagine the argument from the writers is that the type of people portrayed in the film would use words in real life. The problem with this is that the film isn't a drama or a character study, it's a comedy. Simply using the words without a situational reason, simply isn't funny. There is one instance where the 'R' word is used in a modified way by Zach Galifianakis' character and it's actually funny because its used in context with his character and we're laughing (hopefully) at the character's awkwardness.

Ok, I'll get off my soapbox now. The Hangover would actually be an interesting film to dissect on many politically charged levels, but I simply don't have the time. I'll leave that for more adventurous film classes. The bottom line is that The Hangover is laugh out loud funny on plenty of non offensive levels. I could go on talking about specific moments, but that would ruin all the fun for you. I'm looking forward to the dvd to see all the hilarious out takes there are bound to be. Make sure you stay for the beginning of the credits as well for some more raunchy fun.

Wendy and Lucy: 2.5 stars

Plot: A young woman, driving from Indiana to Alaska looking for work, has a breakdown in Oregon and loses her dog Lucy. We are invited along to experience this life altering moment in Wendy’s life while she tries to put the pieces back together and continue her trek.

Wendy and Lucy seemed destined to be one of my favorites. You can ask anyone in my life who knows my film collection and favorite films and they will probably tell you that most have three common elements; they are melancholy, emotionally taxing and contained within a specific moment in time. They will also tell you that I love dogs. Wendy and Lucy has all of these elements, but there was something holding me back from truly liking it.

I have always been a proponent of films that don’t have a beginning or an end, but rather just the middle. I’ve heard that some people hate this. Those people have spent two hours invested in a story and they want to know exactly where these people came from and exactly where they are going end up. Maybe not wrapped up in a nice neat bow, but something close to that. Our lives aren’t that simple. They are made up of thousands of beginnings and endings and tiny stories. Some want an ultimate ending but all we know is what is occurring now. The story isn’t about what happened before but rather what is happening right now. We don’t need to know everything about their lives to gain something from the story and characters. However, Wendy and Lucy failed to convey anything of importance to me. While I understand the choices made, I feel that a little more information may have been helpful in this case. Unfortunately, I left the film with nothing new or gained other than an even greater appreciation for Michelle Williams.

Furthermore, I didn’t feel the connection between Lucy and Wendy, especially in the final scenes. It may seem silly since Lucy is a dog, but she’s one of the main characters and we need to believe the connection just as we would with human actors. Lucy really couldn’t seem to care any less when she was around Wendy. Whenever my family’s dogs see me, or even a dog of my friends, they get really excited. Lucy just seemed lost.

Although I’m only giving the film two and a half stars, that doesn’t mean I’m not recommending it. You could perhaps connect with it in a way that I wasn’t able. Michelle Williams is great (and becoming one of my favorite actors), I loved the stripped back soundtrack that contained only Wendy’s humming, and the overall filmmaking is excellent. It is beautifully photographed and I am looking forward to Kelly Reichardt’s next effort. So I guess what I am saying is that I think this is a well-made film, I appreciated the film, but it is one that I just didn’t connect with which left me wanting more.

Max Payne: 0.5 star * lots of spoilers*

Plot: The wife and child of detective Max Payne are murdered. Payne kills two of the intruders and spends the next three years trying to the find the third. Drugs and his past are involved.

Sometimes there are films that everyone around you, professional critics and friends alike, just plain hates. For some reason, however, the film connects with you and no matter how many flaws you end up really enjoying it. In your eyes everyone is wrong. Some examples of that in my history are Powder and Constantine. That is why I decided to still give this film a chance. I was hoping that Max Payne would be another Constantine, but it turns that everyone else was right. Max Payne is bad, and not in a cool eighties way.

What can I say? I have a weak spot for dark movies that have a hint of any of the following: the dark side of religion, angels or demons or both, revenge, vampires and bad ass characters. Max Payne looked to have at least a few of those checkpoints. So I thought that while others found the movie horrible, I might be able to come out with something positive about it. That task turned out a lot more difficult than I thought. There is a basic recipe to film. It consists of one part directing, one part writing, one part acting, one part editing, and in these modern days we have to add special effects as well. I know that there more elements and hands in the pot than that, but if everyone contributing gets these basic parts of the recipe right, and follows the directions correctly, you'll come out with something at least enjoyable if not great. Hell, even if you get just two parts of the recipe right you still might get a film that I love. Max Payne gets none of these things right. If you decide to still check this one out, writing in vague detail won't ruin anything. If you've seen a few movies in your life you'll know exactly what is going to happen within fifteen minutes, so please indulge me while I convey a few frustrating facts about Max Payne:

1. The villain, in an excruciating fashion, spells out everything he has done before actually killing Max Payne. I know this is a usual super hero film device, but this isn't one of those films (no matter how much the filmmakers wanted it to be). Two things make this even more painful. First is that the viewer has already figured out everything he's saying in the evil monologue, so we just want him to shut up. Then, after Max escapes his clutches and returns in the end to finish everything off, the villain actually says (and the writers actually wrote), "Do you want my confession first?" Really? Did you forget what you wrote two scenes prior? He already confessed. Maybe the writer meant a legal confession that Max could use to clear his name, but that would nullify all of the effort painting him as a man who simply doesn't care, and the villain knows he doesn't care.

2. Mila Kunis' character, Mona Sax, is introduced with no explanation as to why she is there and what she does other than protecting her sister Natasha who somehow has a connection to the death of Payne's family. When Mona's sister dies after a run in with Payne, Sax and Payne realize they're after the same man. Teaming up for the first time and hot on his trail, Sax says, "You know what I do Max. Try anything and I'll kill you." No, we don't know what you do. As far as we can tell you have a machine gun, you're russian, and you have three intimidating guys with you. IMDB informs me she is an assassin. I seriously had no idea. Hopefully I missed something.

3. The "mysterious" story surrounding the death of Payne's family is based around the pharmaceutical company his wife worked for. They manufactured a drug to make soldiers more aggressive, but it went bad, and they had to cover it up. That in itself is infuriating. I think i've heard that plot line on about four different occasions. It's simple, it's boring, and people need to stop using it. Unless, of course, you can think of a more clever way to incorporate it in your film.

4. Payne has been searching for the third killer for three years. Not one month, or one year, but three whole years. Somehow in those three years (he's a detective remember) he missed the fact that a band of druggies were roaming the streets all with the same tattoo, that one of the killers had this tattoo on his arm, and that all of that is connected when he first meets Natasha and she has the same tattoo. All he can muster up is, "That tattoo is interesting." Oooooooooo foreshadowing. I guess the writer wanted some really awesome foreshadowing rather than logic in his script. Oh yeah, that tattoo is also eerily similar to the logo of the pharmaceutical company his wife worked for. Payne must have been a horrible detective, or he literally has gone blind with rage.

5. So, this drug that everyone is taking, we find out later that it has two possible effects. Apparently 1% of the test subjects experienced the wanted effect, however the effect was so extreme it made them mad with power. The other 99% experience extreme addiction, hallucinations containing valkyries from Norse mythology (the name of the drug is also Valkyr) and then eventually die mysteriously from these hallucinations. At one point near the climax Payne is forced to take two hits of the drug to survive. After only two doses, he somehow experiences both of these effects. Not only does he become unstoppable, he has some of the most grandiose hallucinations of all. Keep in mind there are people walking all around taking these drugs on a consistent basis. They were all somewhat functional. I had the impression you had to be a junky to experience these hallucinations. I guess he's special because his family died.

Frustrated yet? I was enough to write this much. I could have kept going, but I don't have the time. The most disappointing thing of all is that the story of Max Payne the man, the Norse mythology, and even Mona Sax could all be parts of a really great and entertaining film. The recipe was just way off in this case. Mark Wahlberg was phoning it in, the special effects were weak, as noted above the script was horrible, and the directing and editing were no fun either. There were a few scenes with some great visuals, and that is why I gave the film half of a star. I honestly wouldn't be all that disappointed if someone tried again in the future minus the pharmaceutical company hogwash because, like I said, I have a sweet spot for this kind of stuff.

Drag Me To Hell: 4 stars

Plot: Christine Brown is a loan officer at a bank trying to get promoted to the open assistant manager position. She tries to impress her boss by denying a third mortgage extension to Mrs. Ganush. That was the wrong move. Mrs. Ganush unleashes an ancient curse on Christine. The curse takes three days to manifest, tormenting you for the first two and dragging you to hell by the end of the third. So Christine has some things to figure out.

Thank you, thank you, thank you Sam Raimi. Thank you for being as fed up with all of the torture porn being released upon us. Thank you for bringing horror back. Drag Me To Hell is perfect material for film classes as a prime and modern example of how horror should be executed. It pretty much does everything right. Oh, and guess what? It's PG13 and scary as hell. People are scared by the unseen, the shadows, and the unknown. We're scared by what's around the corner, by mysterious noises and by things we don't understand. Drag Me to Hell has all of these and plenty more. That's not to say that this film isn't gory. It is plenty gory, but striking a balance is what Raimi does so well. The gore is over the top, funny and oozy and makes you cringe in your seat with laughter. The gore in Drag Me to Hell is what cuts the tension and brings us back down from very well executed scares.

Everything is vintage Raimi. From the score, to the fonts, the quick zooms, booming soundtrack, jump out at you scares and classic story; these are all aspects of film that have become subject to the term cliche, but when re-applied by a master become refreshing and welcome. The soundtrack is phenomenal and if the Academy knows anything this will be nominated for best sound editing come award time. The opening scene is also one I will remember for quite some time. It acts a great device to get you gasping for air immediately. It is two minutes of pure adrenaline and horror followed by the title screen and the welcoming soundtrack. He had me hooked from the start.

In fact, the closing scenes are ones I will remember for some time as well. Just when you think it's about to wrap up, Sam Raimi unleashes another classic and beautifully shot horror scene upon us. Alison Lohman as Christine is perfect. She transforms from a sweet girl next door, to a bad-ass woman trying everything to fight off a curse. She's believable at every turn. Justin Long as her boyfriend, and the straight man in the film is just right as well. Lorna Raver as the terrifying Mrs. Ganush is, well, pretty scary. You know you've executed a successful horror flick when you've scared your audience and they still leave the theater grinning from ear to ear. Also, you've hit the mark when the viewer is alone in the facilities afterwards constantly looking over both shoulders. Do yourself a favor and go get scared by Drag Me To Hell.

Up: 4 stars (you were right Teresa)

Plot: Widower Carl Fredricksen has nothing left to loose. While being forced out of his house and into a nursing home he decides to take the adventure of a lifetime. He turns his house into a flying one using thousands of helium balloons. However, he ends up with a partner and his adventure takes some unexpected turns.

Up is yet another fantastic Pixar animated film. Along with the eye-popping animation (the texture and animation in these films is starting to become out of this world), Pixar always seems to come up with characters and stories that would hold up just as well outside of the animated world, and Up is no exception. There really isn't much to complain about with this film. The one thing I could think of is that some areas lack common sense and realism, but that thought came while I was watching an eighty year old man fly his house to South America with helium balloons. I guess I can let the fact that he never eats or drinks slide.

The story is very touching and will probably hit the sweet spot of many viewers hearts. Pretty much any cliched adjective can be applied to this film, so I'll try to keep it to a minimum. The characters are all fantastic, but the scene stealers are the animals. The talking dog Dug and Kevin the bird are so fun to watch and attribute greatly to all of the films most enjoyable scenes. There are beautiful scenes, belly laugh scenes and some tense action scenes as well. Up has everything for every age group. I'm always impressed that Pixar can pull this off so well with every film. A two year old can sit and be enamored by the beautiful colors and simple humor and adults can enjoy the same things but also pick up on the subtleties meant just for us.

Up is presented in normal 2D or digital 3D. I was really impressed with my first 3D experience during Coraline earlier this year so was excited to see Up in 3D. However, I was disappointed with the 3D in this film. In fact the most exciting 3D came during a trailer for a different movie. Nothing really ever popped out on the screen like it did with Coraline. So don't feel like you're missing anything if you see Up in 2D. One thing you might miss if you don't go see this in theaters is the short film Partly Cloudy that precedes the main attraction. Sometimes they include things like this on the DVD and sometimes they don't. If you can, definitely go see Up in the theaters just to make sure you see this short film. It is very creative, and beautiful and not to be missed.

I would say Up is my third favorite Pixar film behind Finding Nemo and Ratatouille, but that is a personal choice and could definitely change with time. The bottom line is that Up is great. So go see it!

Taken: 3 stars

Plot: Spy retires to reconnect with his daughter and be a better father. Daughter decides to go to Paris instead. Daughter gets taken. Father kicks some major Albanian, and anyone else who gets in the way, ass.

If you decide to see Taken, and don’t completely turn off the logic section of your brain, you’ll ask yourself many questions during the hour and thirty three minute run time. A few of those question may include the following: Who’s driving the boat?, Why was that screw loose in this very expensive house?, What did he do with that other girl with the jacket?, Can a public photo kiosk really enhance a photo that well?, How did he get home? While these are all very good questions, none of them will be answered, and I get the feeling the filmmakers didn’t really care about these small details. Taken is all about how badass Liam Neeson can be (and how dumb American girls can be) and just wants its viewers to have fun for a bit. This film is pure escapism at it’s finest.

Taken was broadly compared to the Bourne series, and rightfully so. However, every film in the Bourne series is far superior to Taken as whole. While they have their similarities, Taken lacks the superior script and filmmakers that the Bourne films have. This film is a short burst of suspense and all out action, and it does this quite well, but beyond that there isn’t much there. The bookends of the movie can be very cheesy and annoying at times. I realize the beginning and end need to be a stark contrast to how brutal Neeson is in the middle of the film in order for the viewer to accept it, but the acting and dialogue is a little much for me at times. However, Liam Neeson is fantastic in this role and we can probably expect a sequel to this as well as many other action flick offers.

I had a lot of fun watching Taken and would definitely watch it again. If you like fast paced action and revenge flicks then you’ll probably have a good time with the film as well. Maybe you’ll be able to tell me who is driving the boat.

The Curious Case of Benjamin Button: 3.5 stars

Plot: At the end of WWI a boy is born who shows all the signs of being an old man on death’s doorstep. This is a story of a man whose body ages backwards but not his mind or soul. We experience his many adventures all while he pursues a normal life, as well as true love. The story is told from the perspective of his diary, which is read at the hospital bed of his dying lifelong friend.

I went into this film with a very open mind. I know it was a much talked about film and that a lot of people were surprised by the fact it received an Oscar nomination for best picture. However, David Fincher is one of my favorite directors, and it seemed like such a unique story so I was excited to see it from the first time I viewed the trailer. The thing about Benjamin Button is, he’s a slightly cold person, and the same can be said about the film in general. Is it worthy of a best picture nomination? That’s debatable, but you cannot debate how grand of a film it is. It is a sprawling and poetic story that tugs at your heart, makes you laugh and makes you wonder. The problem is that the film doesn’t do any of these things exceptionally well; it just does them well. What it does do exceptionally well is the thing that earned it instant Criterion Collection status, and that is special effects.

The effects are so good you don’t even know when they’re being used (except the hummingbird). If we didn’t know what age Cate Blanchett and Brad Pitt are, we would have no idea that their faces at so many points in the film are digitized. It is so seamless and well done I was amazed. I can’t even fathom how they do this kind of work anymore. I’m only twenty-eight and it’s beyond me now. Furthermore, almost every scene can be paused, printed out and hung on the wall as a photograph. The cinematography is splendid and I think the war scene at sea ranks up there as one of the most beautiful scenes I’ve viewed. I am never disappointed by the imagery in a David Fincher film.

Another thing that doesn’t disappoint, and I feel has not been talked about enough, is Brad Pitt’s performance. I said earlier that Benjamin Button is a slightly cold person, which is true, but I think that is in the writing and not Brad Pitt’s fault. I found it fascinating to watch Pitt act like a toddler while he looked 90, and act as an old man when he looked like a teen in his prime. I think he showed a lot of restraint and there were many subtle mannerisms and tone changes that were very interesting. However, I think the writers thought the fact of his unique situation was enough to make Benjamin interesting, and forgot to give him much of a personality.

As a whole, I liked The Curious Case of Benjamin Button. I enjoyed watching it, and wasn’t bored once over the two hour and fifty minute running time. In the end, however, I didn’t care that much either. For some reason, I was just never drawn in to any of the characters. On the other hand, the film is a great work of art. If the story sounds interesting, if the running time doesn’t scare you and you’re a fan of David Fincher then you should give this film a chance, and once will probably be enough.

The Good Life: 3 stars

(Now I'm just going to put a quick plot line before all of my reviews) PLOT: A young man with unique physical features, who lives in a small college football obsessed Nebraska town, meets a mysterious woman who helps him deal with the difficult situations in his life; and there are many.

At first I thought I was going to love The Good Life. Then about halfway through I thought I was going to be ambivalent. Then about ten minutes from the climax, I was pretty sure I was not going to not like it at all. Then it made an abrupt u-turn from where I thought the film was heading, and arrived in a much better place. If you stick around and wade through all of the murkiness, you’ll be rewarded with a much more upbeat message. The cinema lesson learned, which is one I preach all the time to my peers, is to not fight the film and try to figure everything out as you go along, but just let it take you for a ride.

The life lesson preached is just as simple and one I can’t give away here, otherwise there would be no point in watching the film. Unfortunately, one downfall of The Good Life is all the pain and suffering you have to sit through to get to the payoff. Once there you find something that isn’t too earth shattering. While it is a simple message, I for one feel it is an important one and worth spending ninety minutes of your life watching.

For a film that I stumbled upon on Netflix and hadn’t heard of previously, there were many surprising and very enjoyable actors that popped up. From Donal Logue to Bill Paxton to Patrick Fugit to Zooey Deschanel to Harry Dean Stanton, everyone seems very comfortable and laid back. Chris Klein’s washed up and psychotic football player that never made it, at times seems a little forced, but it’s forgivable. Overall, the performances are very good. The writing, while strong overall, can be hokey at times. The main character always has an appropriate and quaint “They say…” story to explain how everyone is feeling in a poetic way. I have the feeling I would have eaten this up when I was nineteen, but older and wiser it just all feels like a little much all at once. The film does have it’s tender and honest moments and some very strong cinematography and pacing. Overall the good outweighs the bad in The Good Life and it is definitely worth the melancholy journey. Wait a second. That is exactly the point the filmmakers are trying to make about life in general, and I just substituted the title of the movie for the word life. So did this review just justify the film? Were the bad elements intentional to prove a point? I just blew my own mind.

Special: 2 Stars

Special is a film that could have been. It could have been smart, it could have had insight and it could have been great. Unfortunately a loveable Michael Rapaport is wasted in a film that isn’t quite sure what it wants to be, leaves intriguing plot points unturned and misses some great opportunities.

Basically, the reason this movie gets two stars instead of one is Michael Rapaport; the reason I wanted to see this film. I love Michael Rapaport, and I think he’s perfect for this role. He plays wounded and affected as well as anyone else. There are a few decent supporting actors and roles, but this is his show and he delivers. What doesn’t deliver is the script. Like Watchmen, but in a much less intellectual and extravagant way, Special asks the question, “What would happen if normal everyday people became superheroes?” Rapaport plays Les, a man unsatisfied with his place in this world who enrolls in a pharmaceutical clinical trial. The medication is only supposed to make one’s self doubt disappear but takes an extreme effect on Les and essentially makes him think he has superpowers. Imitating the characters in the comic books he loves, Les sets out on his new occupation.

While it is entertaining to watch Rapaport in this role, foiling imaginary crimes and running face first into walls thinking he is running through them, the film never goes beyond this. Actually, I take that back. The film does go into a strange area of bashing prescription drug manufacturers (or suits) and the lengths they will go to get their drug on the market. While I don’t disagree with this observation, the film slowly drifts away from the most interesting subject matter and ends on a very unsatisfactory note. In addition, and I’ll say this without trying to spoil anything, in the last twenty minutes we are teased with a new and exciting storyline that is literally and simply left behind and never resolved in order to revisit the evil suits one last time. In the end, and on many levels, I’m left asking why?

Tell No One: 3.5 stars

Tell No One is a very enjoyable thriller/mystery. It's not mind-blowing, it's not completely original in any way, and it’s just a solid film with suspense, action and an engaging story. However, you might want to bring a pad and paper to get everything straight while you're watching it. This isn't a film you can watch while doing something else or you'll miss some very important information. You have to pay attention and store bits and pieces as you go along to remember later. The fact that it is French with subtitles may make that difficult for some people. I was prepared going in, so it wasn't too bad. I did have to rewind once or twice to make sure I had everything straight. Unlike some thrillers that try to be too smart for their own good, the rug isn't pulled out from under you for a "gotcha!" ending. It is actually pretty masterful how the filmmakers were able to put everything together in a way that keeps the viewer guessing, keeps the truth hidden until the final minutes, all without making us feel cheated or duped. The way everything unravels makes complete sense. Although it might seem like they are, the answers are not delivered in a nice neat box with a bow. I enjoy when filmmakers assume the viewers are smart enough to put everything together themselves.

In my last post I stated how I wasn't going to bother laying out the plot and all of the characters in my reviews anymore, and I will stand by that for this film, however you should know that there A LOT of characters to keep track of. Again, you just have to play close attention and you'll be fine. After the conclusion you might think something was left uncovered, there had to be a loose end or that something was ignored along the way. I'll bet you fifty bucks you won't be able to find anything. As I said before it is truly masterful how the filmmakers were able to piece everyone and everything together. I also implore you not to read any reviews where the plot points or scenes are discussed. Go into this one blind, it's so much more enjoyable that way. You will most likely read the basic synopsis, which is fine as that is just the tip of the iceberg. The direction is very good, the acting is solid (Francois Cluzet is exceptional), and there are some very beautiful scenes, some creative photography as well as an outstanding soundtrack. You might slip up, but Tell No One doesn't, I promise you.

The Wrestler: 4 Stars **slight scene spoilers**

I'm going to go in another direction with this movie review blog. I'm going to try to have my posts be more of a reaction to the filmmaking rather than a formal review. The plot, the actors names etc. can all be found on IMD and Rotten tomatoes and I feel like I am avoiding the point by covering all of that information. In the end, the reaction and discussion of the result is all the matters. So hopefully this new format is more helpful. 

I absolutely loved The Wrestler. However, it is definitely not a universally appealing film. That's the thing about art; great art is never appreciated and understood by all, and it shouldn't be. Some artists or scholars will disagree with me on the why of that statement. Some think art shouldn't be personal, as this may blind the artist to a work's true meaning and make it difficult to complete. By being objective and specific it is harder to confuse the intent. With such a specific intent, that will of course turn off people who have no interest in that subject matter. However, I believe that all art, from the extremely personal to the lavishly theatrical, has the same percentage of  natural alienation. So why not invest yourself into your creation? I believe it is the impersonal art that makes it difficult to connect to. It might be more widely understood, but that doesn't mean anyone should care. While it can be just as easily misunderstood or glossed over, I feel personal art results in a more honest and truthful representation of the subject matter and thus a more universal appeal. Why should I invest any emotion or time into something if the creator hasn't invested the same? The artist may have taken the creative time to produce something, but when an artist becomes part of his/her creation a mutual understanding of care is developed between artist and viewer. While the interpretation may be different from that of the artist, the goal of consciousness and introspection is reached and that is all that matters. This personal investment is why Mickey Rourke's performance, and the overall affect of the film, is so outstanding. 

While everyone in the film is great, Rourke as Randy "The Ram" Robinson does truly stand out and is deserved of any accolades stowed upon him. However, lets not forget the director and writer who do have a large part in assisting Rourke to get to this point. First, there is Aronofsky's raw approach. In terms of his previous work think of PI rather than The Fountain. Aronofsky's choice of film instead of digital is excellent. I'm not sure what kind of film he used, or the exact process, but the result has the look of a slightly aged, expired roll of color film. The color is bright, but something seems off, much like The Ram himself. Second, there are some fantastic scenes written for Rourke to excel in. You might think that one of the emotionally revealing scenes shown in the trailers is what I would choose, however I think the smaller everyday scenes are what add more to The Ram's character. Working his day job in a deli, having a beer and reminiscing about the eighties, and one in particular where Randy has nothing better to do than play NES wrestling (as himself) with one of the neighborhood kids. The interaction between the two of them is priceless. 

The Wrestler provides us with a brief vignette from Randy "The Ram" Robinson's troubled life, and probably one of the more important ones. While you will receive no additional information regarding his ex-wife, his estranged daughter, or what he has done in the past to end up where he is now, it really isn't necessary. Think of it as a documentary with no filmmaker intervention. Normal people don't walk around blurting out all the details of their past with people they already know and don't have convenient flashbacks filling in all of the holes. During scenes with his daughter I suppose Randy could have delved deeper into his emotions and his thoughts on their relationship and his relationship with her mother, but then again, I don't think Randy is the kind of person who would do that.  

The Spirit: 2.5 stars

**update: I originally gave this film 3 stars, but have changed it to 2.5. This isn't to say I didn't like the film or that I wouldn't watch it again, but rather conceding that it isn't the most well crafted film, and giving it 3 stars would be unfair to other films which are technically superior. 3 stars would be saying this film is close to 4, and it isn't anywhere near that. It is just an enjoyable 2.5 star film.

This is going to be a quick review because there really isn’t much thought needed for The Spirit, but that’s part of why I’m giving the film three stars. You’ll go on Rotten Tomatoes and see that it received a paltry 14%, read reviews implying that it is vacant of all emotion (which is correct) and state that it is all “style over substance,” and most likely dismiss the movie if you’re not the biggest graphic novel enthusiast. My question is are we really supposed to care?

Perhaps we are spoiled moviegoers now since we’ve had the pleasure of witnessing the rebirth of Batman, the beauty of Sin City and the depths of Watchmen, but I’ve always thought graphic novels and comic books read exactly like The Spirit is presented. I was never an aficionado, but I’ve read a few comic books and even when at their deepest they aren’t the greatest pieces of literature out there. They are bold, beautiful and fast just like The Spirit. I still have yet to come across a review from someone who has actually read The Spirit, and I’d be interested to see if director Frank Miller stayed true to the source.

Maybe it was because I went in expecting nothing, as most of the reviews prepared me for, but I enjoyed The Spirit and would watch it again. It is gorgeous to look at and it is all over the top fun. It’s really best not to bring any logic into this one, just sit back and enjoy the ridiculous show. What is the story you ask? No matter, that’s just the bit of glue holding together all of the cleavage, sexual innuendos, violence and flimsy hard talk dialogue, but I mean that in a good way. While film has evolved over time into a fine art form, movies were created to be an escape and that is exactly what The Spirit delivers.

Lars and the Real Girl: 4 stars

There are films that, for me, serve as a litmus test for one’s personality. You can tell a lot about someone by the films they love. It doesn’t work on everybody. If someone just isn’t that into movies then it won’t work. Some films work better than others, there are different litmus tests for different people, some preferences just don’t matter, but others are windows into ones true self. I know that sounds corny, but it’s true and Lars and the Real Girl is one of those films for me. If you dislike this movie, then we may have a problem (I’m looking in your direction Michael Phillips).

Lars and the Real Girl is the story of a man named Lars, played by the more and more impressive Ryan Gosling, from a small town who leads a life of isolation in this family’s coach house. His older brother and his expectant wife, played wonderfully by Emily Mortimer, now inhabit the main house. As the story unfolds we gather more bits of information from the family’s past to help explain why Lars may act the way he does. The basic plot is that in order to deal with difficulties with social interaction, a painful past, and longing for love Lars orders a life size realistic doll to be his companion. He pretends she is real, names her, gives her a past and introduces her to his family as his girlfriend whom he met on the Internet. His family, as well as the town, on advice from their physician goes along with Lars’ delusion that this doll is real in order to help Lars deal with his true issues.

Some reviews I have read make the mistake of penning Lars, along with the movie as a whole, as quirky. I feel this couldn’t be further from the truth, and would probably offend a large group of people who have the same type of disorder portrayed in this film. I believe Lars along with the film is very true to life. I think a better word would be distinct. It would be irresponsible to assume emotionally damaged or delusional people don’t exist as represented in this film just because one hasn’t had the experience in their own life. Furthermore, the film is very restrained. No character is so over the top that it is unbelievable. Some may argue that the fact that the whole town bands together to help Lars is unbelievable. I’m a pretty cynical person, but had no problem believing that this could occur, especially in a small town.

I was even waiting for the inevitable bully scene, where an immature secondary character confronts the main character about being different, calls him names, beats him up and makes him cry. It is a cheap and cliché cinema tool to evoke compassion from the audience. That scene never came in Lars and that’s because it doesn’t need it. The filmmaking, writing and acting is superb, and it wasn’t hard for me to become attached. The film is also not afraid to allow you to laugh. Life is funny, even when it’s painful. If you can’t learn to laugh at yourself, then the difficult times are going to be even worse. I belly laughed and cried and was very impressed with this one. I can’t wait to watch it again.

If you watch this film and find it hard to believe anything that occurs, feel that it’s ridiculous that everyone is going along with Lars’ delusion and he just needs to be told the doll isn’t real, or feel that the characters are over the top, you can consider yourself the point of the film. If left in your hands Lars would probably be in a mental institution getting worse.

Adventureland: 3.5 stars

We’ve all had horrible summer jobs. I’ve actually worked as a telemarketer with a group of my high school friends. The question is always, “ How can you stand it there?” The answer isn’t usually a positive one, but in reality it is the camaraderie, the crushes and aimless fun created in the meantime that allow our minds to show up every day. Summer jobs are a sort of limbo between the end of one part of life and the start of a new chapter. Adventureland creates this atmosphere with perfection and throws in a very touching coming of age love story as well.

In the summer of 1987, James Brennan (Jesse Eisenberg) is sideswiped by reality following his graduation from college when he is told that his parents can’t afford to pay for a trip to Europe as previously planned. Needing money to help his transition into graduate school, but having no real life experience to speak off, James take a summer job at the local amusement park working the game booths. There, he meets and falls for Em (Kristen Stewart) who is dealing with some issues of her own. Along for the ride is an excellent supporting cast anchored by Martin Starr as the super geek, and Bill Hader and Kristen Wiig as the hilarious park managers. Hell, even Ryan Reynolds fits perfectly and does a great job of underplaying and not making his character stick out like a sore thumb (which as written, could have easily happened).

I really liked this film. For me, Adventureland will be another movie that, just as Nick and Norah’s Infinite Playlist did, fits perfectly into a specific place and time both on film and in viewer’s lives. Armed with a great soundtrack (I’m not cool enough to know all the bands from this soundtrack, but I know the music I heard was great) the film brings back a rush of personal memories and that ability to relate to it's audience is big part of it's success. The music links together memories from crappy summer jobs, high school or college loves and our own hilarious misadventures and allows us to relive them in between opening and closing credits along with a fictional group of friends.

This was a particularly difficult review to write not because the film was difficult, but because there really isn’t that much to analyze. It’s one of those really solid films that is a breeze to sit through, is crafted well behind the camera and in front and is a film that you just need to go see and experience rather than read about.

Overlooked Gems

I've been tied up with other projects lately, so I haven't seen any movies I wanted to review. A review of MST3K would just be weird. So I bring you seven films from my personal collection (one I have yet to purchase) that you may have overlooked. These are all little gems that I was very surprised by. That's usually the case. You pick see a film that didn't interest you in the first place, or didn't have expectations for, and then it knocks you on your butt. Keep in mind these films are not universally adored or anything, so I'm not saying that you'll absolutely love them, but you should at least give them a chance. You might be pleasantly surprised. So here they are in no particular order. 

1. Shotgun Stories: This is a modern day western set in Southeast Arkansas. This tense and engaging story of a family feud confidently ranks up there with the best films I saw in 2008. The actors are phenomenal, anchored by Academy Award nominee Michael Shannon, and the soundtrack is outstanding as well. It is slow moving, but what it lacks in action it makes up for in story and acting. 

2. Oleanna:  Oleanna is a 3 act 2 person play by David Mamet, and Mamet brings his work to the big screen with William H. Macy in the lead role. The subject matter is sexual harassment and the film is very tense and very minimal. The power of the acting and script is all that is needed. Its one of those movies that just slowly turns up the tension and makes you boil inside. If you like any of  David Mamet's work or any other dialogue driven films, then definitely check this out. 

3. Diggers: Written by Ken Marino, starring Paul Rudd and Maura Tierney...need I say more? Ok, I probably do. This film is just a joy to watch. It's one of those movies that just fits in this really nice niche; it doesn't do too much and doesn't ask for too much from viewers. It's funny, touching, and very well done. It really doesn't matter what the story is, just go watch it!

4. A Guide To Recognizing Your Saints: Written and directed by first timer Dito Montiel, Saints tells the story of a group of friends from the mid-80's growing up in Astoria, Queens. This film was very outstanding for a first time Director, let alone a seasoned one. This one is as gritty as it gets, and the fact that is based on Montiel's personal memoir makes it all the more intense.  RDJ's performance alone is enough to give this one a shot. 

5.  Tape:  This is another film based on a play. Richard Linklater brings Stephen Belber's stage play to the big screen. Ethan Hawke, Robert Sean Leonard and Uma Thurman star in what is a very low budget film. Even more minimal than Oleanna, Tape is shot entirely on what seems like a $250  mini-dv camera (don't worry it's on a tripod), and in a one room location. This film also boasts the feel of a documentary. It is the story of three high-school friends reuniting to reminisce but soon find out one of them has an ulterior motive of revealing one of their painful pasts. Again, if all you need is a good story and good dialogue then check this one out. 

6. Brick: You'll either love or hate this one. I haven't really found much of an in between. I personally think it's a breath of fresh air. The story is a throwback to the fast talking hard-boiled detective stories of the 20's, except this one is set in suburbia and the characters are in High School. Turn it up loud and really pay attention because they words come at you very fast. Even if it's not you're thing you can't deny the talent of first time director Rian Johnson. Watch out for his next film which hits the theatre this year; The Brothers Bloom with Adrian Brody and Mark Ruffalo.

7. Waitress: I have to admit I thought this was going to be a very lame chick flick when I first saw it advertised. I caught it at a friends on DVD and I was amazed. It's just very funny, charming, smart and will make you want some pie. 

Milk: 3 stars

I remember seeing Gus Van Sant’s Good Will Hunting in the theatres. It was one movie experience that became etched into my memory for some reason. I was sharply struck by the film and absolutely fell in love with it. Van Sant has since offended me and many other filmgoers with some strange and poor choices. It’s almost as if the self-editing function of his brain had been torn out. Well it is back and functioning for Milk, kind of, and due to the large amount of outstanding acting it is a very solid film.

Milk tells the story of Harvey Milk, the first openly gay person elected to public office not just in California but also in America. Moving to San Francisco from New York City, Harvey and his partner Scott Smith opened up a camera store on Castro Street. This location would soon become the epicenter for the entire gay movement in the city and Milk became the spokesman. Milk understood that more could be done from within the system than simply fighting against the homophobic police and politicians and decided to run for office. Those of you who are familiar with the story don’t need an entire breakdown of what occurred and those of your who are not will be better served just watching the story develop on screen.

The most enjoyable part of this film was the acting. Sean Penn is indeed Academy Award worthy in his performance. It is controlled, nuanced and very real. You forget you’re watching Sean Penn. The supporting cast is stellar and award worthy as well. Emile Hirsch’s performance really stuck out to me. Hirsch plays Cleve Jones, a young boy recruited by Harvey to join his team and assist with activism and his campaign. Hirsch completely transformed into the person he was portraying. It was a pleasure to watch all of the fine acting; from James Franco to Josh Brolin everyone was perfect. If judged on acting alone my rating would have been four stars, however, something felt lacking to me.

There were times that I wished for a more detailed look at the man that Harvey Milk was. The film does a great job of documenting Harvey’s rise to activist and politician, as well as all of the events surrounding him, but everything was quickly brushed over. Van Sant also utilizes artistic transitions and real stock footage of the events and politicians that are contained in the story, however I feel at times this takes away from the courageous stories being told. I think the idea was to lend more authenticity, but the spliced footage and audio felt more like propaganda or documentary to me. There are hints of the motivations, past and history of Harvey Milk and his closest friends sprinkled throughout, but nothing is ever fully flushed out. Overall the film is touching, the story is engaging and the acting is brilliant, but I won’t be rushing to watch it again.

The most enlightening about this film for me is the fact that when originally advertised it made me realize that I had no idea who Harvey Milk was. Throughout approximately twenty years of public education, not once was the life or actions of Harvey Milk discussed along with the effect that he had on the treatment of homosexuals in our country. Although the film could have been more effective in portraying Harvey Milk the man, it painfully exposed to me the real tragedy that is Harvey Milk’s lack of representation, along with homosexuals in general, in our school’s history books. If other prominent political leaders and activists for many other minorities are covered I see no reason why Harvey Milk shouldn’t be as vastly included and revered in American History.

I Love You, Man: 3 stars

Paul Rudd has become a bona fide leading man. It took him a while, but I’m glad it happened. Slowly but surely he climbed the ladder from Gen Y Cops and Halloween: The Curse of Michael Myers to Role Models and I Love You, Man. Jason Segel joins him in I Love You Man and together they made me want my own man cave.

What is a man cave you ask? It is a lair of all things men. Where men can be men, do man things and not be ashamed. Sydney Fife (Segel) has a man cave and becomes Peter Klaven’s (Rudd) man mentor. You see, Peter is a Real Estate Agent who just got engaged had has no guy friends to be in his wedding party. He has always been a girl’s guy. Afraid he’s going to upset the wedding party balance, he sets off to find a best man. After a few failed man dates Peter meets Sydney at one of his open houses and they hit it off. A bevy of scenes containing straight guys acting like they’re a couple ensues.

The story progresses and there are many supporting facets that there is no need to spell out here. So lets just talk about what works and doesn’t work in the film. Paul Rudd and Jason Segel are what works. They are both on top of their game and make this film tick. I can’t really imagine anyone else in the roles being as funny, because to be honest the script is a tad weak. Rudd and Segel really bring it too life and probably make it more funny than it is on paper. The supporting characters/actors are all where they need to be as well, supporting. No one tries to steal the show and nothing sticks out as being completely unfunny. I can’t recall any complete misses, but there definitely some weaker moments. However, the weak moments aren’t weak enough to drag the rest of the film down, and the hilarious moments more than make up for it.

I did feel like the film started off a little sugary for my taste. I was worried for the first ten minutes as Klaven and his fiancé were kind of annoying. However, that wore off and the more Klaven tried to be a man, the more hilarious he became. What is great about Rudd’s performance is that there is no crazy transformation into mandom. He manages to maintain Klaven’s clean-cut and slightly dorky mannerisms while trying to be more of a dude’s man. The result is an awkwardness that is always amusing. Segel also shines as the man whose lifestyle never really changed from high school. I won’t say he hasn’t grown up, because he has, he just made some different choices along the way. He’s not immature; he’s just eccentric in my eyes.

The film is written and directed by John Hamburg, who also wrote and directed Along Came Polly. You can tell, as a lot of the same cinematic and narrative devices are used, however I Love You, Man is far more funny and enjoyable. In different hands the story could have been turned into something downright hilarious, but I have no big complaints. I Love You, Man is a nice and easy buddy comedy that hits the mark.