Top 10 Movies of 2006
1) Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest
2) Thank You For Smoking
3) The Prestige
4) Pan's Labyrinth (El Laberinto Del Fauno)
5) The Fountain
6) Jet Li's Fearless
7) Letters From Iwo Jima
8) Cars
9) Miami Vice
10) V For Vendetta
Letters From Iwo Jima. This is the story of the Japanese soldiers at Iwo Jima as told by "letters" they left behind. This film functions as a companion piece to Flags of Our Fathers (which I didn't see and both were directed by Clint Eastwood). A well done war movie that doesn't really break any new territory although it is cool to see a WWII movie by an American director that doesn't focus on America's efforts for a change. A very good movie and worth checking out (although I'm not sure it was good enough to get the Oscar nomination it got, but...) Recommended. Jan. 27/07. (Sub-title warning: This movie is all in a foreign language--you've been warned).
Pan's Labyrinth (El Laberinto Del Fauno). This is the tale of a young girl's adventure set in a small Spanish town during World War II. Ofelia is a pre-pubescent girl who moves with her mother Carmen to a small town where her mother has married a new husband, the ruthless Captain Vidal, after her first husband passed away. The Captain has his hands full with Communist rebels in the nearby mountains however he has conceived a son with Carmen and is anxiously awaiting it's birth. Ofelia is a nuisance to him and she quickly finds ways to entertain herself. She's loved her books which have tales of great fantasies in them and it isn't long before she finds some nearby ruins of interest--the point where her adventure truly begins. Her fantasy adventure parallels her real life one, even intersecting it in a few places. This is a well done movie by director Guillermo del Toro (I've previously seen two of his works--Blade 2 and Hellboy) and easily his best yet. The war story is interesting enough and the fantasy allegory that Ofelia experiences is imaginative and compelling. I have two minor complaints, however--Captain Vidal is too evil. So much so, it's hard to buy it. No one's that evil without any good side at all to them... I found him to be a little unrealistic as a character. I also disliked one part of the movie's final resolution (however, I can't say what without ruining the ending. See the movie and you'll know what I mean). Still, the movie was well done in all respects and tells a compelling story. Highly recommended. Jan. 24/07. (Sub-title warning: This movie is all in a foreign language--you've been warned).
Jet Li's Fearless. A Chinese movie about the legendary martial artist, Huo Yuanjia. Set during the early twentieth century in China, it tells the story of Huo's rise to being the greatest fighter in his district and the subsequent disaster that arose from it, destroying his life as he knew it. Left without purpose, he wanders the countryside and finds himself in rural China over the course of time. He will rise to become one of China's greatest heroes, bringing a new respect to his people and for them on the world stage. This is another excellent action movie with a thoughtful story behind it. I appreciated that the action sequences weren't too exaggerated (compared with something like Crouching Tiger or Hero). Well worth seeing... highly recommended. Dec. 26/06.
(Sub-title warning: This movie is all in a foreign language--you've been warned). **I saw this movie at a discount theatre recently, which is why the review is so much later then it normally would be.
The Fountain. There were mixed reviews when this movie came out. Some loved it while others despised it. Having seen it now, I understand both reactions. This is either a brillant piece of art or total garbage depending on your point of view. The movie follows a main story of a married couple, Thomas and Izzi. Tom is a veternarian/scientist trying to find ways to cure cancer and other diseases by operating on sick animals. His main motivation is the fact his wife is dying of a growth on her brain stem. He desparately wants to find a cure for her condition--he loves her so much he can't bare the thought of losing her. Another story in the film is Izzi's novel about a Spanish soldier sent by his queen, Isabel, to South America to find the biblical Tree of Life. With it, he can bring them eternal life and help his Queen put down the Spanish Inquisition (which sees her acts as blasphemy and plans to murder her). A third story takes place in the "future" (it's never called the future in the movie, though). This story has another Tom watching over a precious tree in a bubble in space. He is taking it to a nebula in space to help it be reborn through the star's death. All of it's inter-related, of course. Izzy's novel is a fantasy form of her Tom seeking out her prize--a cure to her disease. While the space/future tale's origin is more murky, it's also a parable of the same thing. The Tree in that segment being Izzy and Tom being it's protector, taking it to salvation (I suspect the space segment was some sort of dream/manifestation of Tom's psyche). This movie is very artsy, using as many camera tricks and other stuff to try and convey its point (example--many scenes are filmed in dark places, like a dark hospital, dark lab or dark royal courtroom. Each representing the direness of the "present" in the film. In the end, everything becomes bright because the journey has reached its inevitable climax and through death, all is reborn). That point, I think, is that life is precious, death inevitable, and we must use our time wisely, appreciating the gifts we've been given. I think some places in the movie could've been trimmed here and there but all in all this was a fairly good attempt. Not for everyone but one of those thoughtful movies that some will love. Recommended. (Dec.7/06).
The Prestige. From the director of Batman Begins, comes a movie about two rival magicians in turn of the century London. Christian Bale is Alfred Borden and Hugh Jackman is Robert Angier. When young apprentices, Borden accidentally kills Angier's wife Julia (the magician's assistant). Angier nevers gets over the hurt and decides to get even by killing Borden when he goes off on his own to become a magician. This is botched and ends up injuring Borden, who decides to reciprocate and thus begins a long, bitter rivalry between the two magicians. Each tries to destroy the other's career several times. When Borden unveils the "transported man" trick, Angier steals the idea and uses it to get rich. The story is one of obsession and revenge. Angier is unable to leave things alone and this is the crux of the story. Similarly, Borden won't walk away from a fight when it's started... it's well done and feels quite human--we've all met people with these traits (or perhaps are like that ourselves). The story is also mystifying in places, keeping us riveted to what's going on and highlighting the magic of storytelling while showing us a film on magic. The ending revelations are a great denouement and a make this an excellent film. Recommended. (Oct. 28/06).
Miami Vice. Based off the hit 80s TV series this movie re-imagining is faithful to the idea in many respects... the two characters are James "Sonny" Crockett (Colin Farrell) and Ricardo Tubbs (Jamie Foxx). The movie also features speed boats, sports cars, drug dealers, planes and lots of violence (well, not that much really, but some). Its not an 80s love-fest (fortunately), so anyone going to it expecting that will be disappointed. The story is complex but basically involves the main characters getting involved with a South American drug dealer Kingpin in order to find a leak in the US justice system (it's better then it sounds). The characterization is pretty good--both play their characters as men one step from going too far into the criminal world they're dealing with. Crockett seems a bit more willing to play loosely with the rules (which is accurate with the TV show, from what I can recall). A lot of the movie is talking and planning their various schemes as well as some romantic segments with the men and their respective love interests. In fact, the movie is over two hours long--although I'm not sure really what they could cut out of it.... There's not as much action as one would expect in this movie but what's there is decent and the violence is graphic when it's called for. After watching this, one wonders how they could've possibly done the show right in the 80s without modern cell phones (given how often they use them in this show. :-) My initial reaction is that Collateral was a bit better but I think this is probably one of those movies a person warms up to over time rather then loving right off the bat. Ultimately this is another good crime drama film by Michael Mann and a worthy addition to his resume. Recommended. (Aug. 1/06).
Lady In The Water. The latest movie from director M. Night Shyamalan is a a fantasy tale of a building caretaker that finds someone swimming in the building's common pool one night and goes to investigate. While doing so, he almost drowns and when he awakes, he finds a woman named Story in his apartment. As the tale goes, he soon leans she is a Narf (a sea Nymph) and she is there to find someone. Eventually, she must leave and the building's tennants must band together to see to it she gets back to her own world safely. Its hard to explain the movie's plot without revealing too much details but it all works fairly well--just be warned that, as usual, the trailers are misleading and try to make the show seem like a horror movie. It is not a horror movie (neither was The Village before it) but rather a fantasy tale. Paul Giamotti (Cleveland Heep) and Bryce Howard (Story) are excellent as the leads and so are the rest of the bit players in the story (including Shyamalan himself). Bryce is great-- a great actor, I mean (yes, that's what I meant... ;) She doesn't get as much dialogue but conveys a sense of innocence and vulnerability in her presentation. I do have some minor nitpicks however... for one thing, the movie is 110 minutes and it feels like it could've been a bit longer--or at least explained a few points better here and there. Story's ultimate point in going on her journey in the first place was a bit vague to me--was it a coming of age test/test of courage/something? There is a brief back story in the beginning of the film but it fails to explain what exactly sent the Scrunts. Why do they try to attack the Narfs? This is never really explained. Also, the other creatures are "evil" but there to attack the Scrunts--huh? And if Story is from the "blue world" (i.e. a sea/water place) then why can't she leave through the building's pool? And/or, did she come through the pool to begin with, for that matter? (It appears so but is never completely clear on that point). The movie asks you to believe in many vagarities that it really should explain, if only a bit, to satisfy our curiousity. On a similiar note, if Shyamalan is so great at character/dialogue (and he is) then why can't he focus some of that intelligence on the plot problems? Also, Shyamalan gets a larger then usual role in this film and while he does well, one can't help but wonder if it's all an ego trip (he's claimed it isn't, but given what his character's future is, I can't help but wonder). Still, the overall tale is an enjoyable one despite a few flaws. Recommended. (July 24/06).
Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest. I read a review decrying this movie as being irreverent, silly and over the top, not at all like the wonder of the first one. I don't understand why people hold the first movie in such high regard--sure, it was a good movie but a good *popcorn* movie, not an Oscar nominated masterwork of fiction! Yeesh! Any way, Dead Man's Chest picks up some time after the first movie, following the adventures of Captain Jack, Will Turner and Elizabeth Swann. Will and Elizabeth are arrested for helping Jack in the first movie... meanwhile, Jack has problems of his own--Davey Jones wants his soul, as part of deal he made some thirteen years earlier (the movie didn't elaborate on this as much as it could have. Perhaps the third film will?) Blah, blah, Flying Dutchmen, the chest of Davey Jones, etc. The plot is your typical adventure movie hokum, there to set up elaborate stunts and silly little jokes. And, to its credit, it works very well. This is more of the same from the first movie and that's cool--the first movie was enjoyable if ultimately forgettable (I've seen it once). The acting is sufficient--Depp's Captain Jack is "off" in a few places here... some have said he's lost his edge but I think its more that he just didn't get quite as many chances to overact here as he did in the first one. Some of the stunts are so outrageous as to be ridiculous but not really any worse then the first movie and in a show like this you have to just check logic at the door and go with it. All in all, a worthy sequel... here's hoping part three will live up to the first two. Recommended. (July 11/06).
Superman Returns. The latest movie based around DC's flagship character and it appears that the long rest taken with this character and film has done him some good. The last Superman movie was way back in 1987 and pretty terrible (as was Superman III before it). According to press from this movie, this story takes the first two Superman movies into its continuity and ignores the last two (smart move). Anyway, Superman returns to Earth after a five year absence only to find that Lois has moved on without him, finding herself a new man and having a child. Clark moves back into his old life without too much problem--typically, no one questions the fact both he and Superman have been gone for exactly the same amoung of time (Superman to explore remnants of Krypton and see if anything of his people may have survived while Clark has been traveling the world to find himself). In some ways, Clark isn't as much of a character as he could be in this movie. He's featured prominantly in the first half of the movie but the rest of the time the main character is exclusively Superman, almost as if Singer didn't really know what to do with him (this contrasts the earlier flicks and is noticeable). Even at the end of the movie, there's no closure with the Clark Kent side of things and there really should be. Lois' fiance is played by James Marsters and he kept making me think he was going to whip out his eye blast at any moment (he's also Cyclops in the X-Men movies. Ironically, he gets more screen time in this movie then the three x-movies combined!) The story also seems a bit rough in the sense that its a continuation of two much older movies and this one has new actors and a different directing style. The actual story itself is fairly decent--Lex Luthor comes up with a diabolical scheme, Superman must stop it, etc. The real steam of the story comes from all the longing stares Superman and Lois give one another, her really nice guy fiance and her sweet, sickly little son. One story surprise later in the movie on the yacht was logical and interesting for the future. This wasn't the best superhero movie ever done but it certainly is better then some attempts (like the recent X-Men movie). Its not a truly great movie (like Batman Begins or Spiderman 2) but still fairly good (I'd say on par with X-Men 1). Recommended.
Cars is the latest movie in a series of releases by Disney/PIXAR. Like the previous movies, this one features spectacular cgi animation, some of it fabulously photo-realistic in quality. The story is one of Lightning Mcqueen, a rookie hotshot race car that is trying to win a race that will make his career. But his life is not as good as it seems--no one wants to stay and work for him and he has no real friends. On the way to California, an accident sends him to Radiator Springs, a dying town on the fabled Route 66. There, he finds all the things he's been missing and more... but can he choose between a new life as an ordinary car or will his previous life of fame catch up to him? On the surface, this is another hit PIXAR movie and teaches the lessons of friendship above all else, finishing what you started and appreciating history. Its a well done story and we really do come to care about the characters. However... PIXAR started the whole 3D animation movie market a decade ago with the original Toy Story and it would be nice in some ways if they would take some chances with their product, try something new and shake things up a bit. Instead, here, as usual, they take the tried and true method and go for the lovable kid friendly pap that's built their profile. Its not that Cars is a bad movie or a failure by any means, but wouldn't it be nice if they'd experiment more and try to break the mold they've created rather then just churning out more of the same? I think so... Recommended, for what is is. (June 23/06).
X-Men: The Last Stand. The third (and supposedly, last) installment in the movie series about Marvel Comic's mutant team. This third chapter sees the mutants have to deal with the arrival of an apparent cure to their condition. Some welcome it while others see it as the opening volley in the war between normals and specials--surely the presence of this cure will be forced upon all, whether they want it or not. Another movie with top notch acting and special effects and generally, a good effort. It was cool that Colossus and Kitty Pryde got more to do in the film (Colossus had actual lines and Kitty did some important things). The Beast (Kelsey Grammar) was also a welcome addition. This is the first movie not directed by Bryan Singer (Brett Ratner did it instead). Despite a noble attempt, it's clear someone other then Singer directed this film because the pacing is different from the first two. I also wondered at some of the plot logic--at one point, Magneto moves the Golden Gate bridge... this is fine but I had to wonder why he couldn't have just grabbed a boat/plane/whatever and used it for transportation instead (I mean, duh!) Sure, it looked cool but it was totally unnecessary. Some characters in the film die and I felt this was unneeded as well. I think that the script maybe should've had one more draft before they shot it (or perhaps I just believe Singer would've done it a little more upbeat, I dunno). Still, the movie was an adequate ending to the trilogy and pretty good overall (despite my nitpicks). Recommended. (May 27/06).
Thank You For Smoking. This is a satire that follows the exploits of a Tobacco lobbyist named Nick Naylor as he defends Americans right to kill themselves through smoking. The story introduces him, follows all his quick easy talk and his attempt to get hollywood to help purvey cigarettes as a good thing instead of the deadly thing they are. There is some narration in the film and Nick describes himself as a talker by trade. Despite what he does for a living, Nick is a good guy at heart and wants to make sure he raises his son right. He's a shyster but we still get concerned when things take a turn for the worst for him. It's a short movie at a mere 91 minutes (it doesn't need to be longer, though) and it's hard to describe without giving away a lot of plot but its a very well done flick and definitely worth seeing. There is a lot of great comedy in the film and while it's billed as satire it's actually smart enough to take a real look at the issue and make a decent case for the tobacco industry, in the sense that people have to be educated about matters and should ultimately be responsible for their own stupidity rather then expecting the government to legislate right and wrong. Highly recommended. (Apr. 24/06).
V For Vendetta. Based off the popular graphic novel of the same name (which I have never read), the movie script for this was written by the Wachowski brothers (of the Matrix fame). The story is set in a futuristic London where the government is controlled by a fascist state governed by a tyrannical Chancellor. V (Hugo Weaving), a vigilante who's been badly burned, wears a Guy Fawkes mask and decides to take it down through any means necessary. Since I've never read the graphic novel, I can't really say how this compares to it however, I can say the movie is pretty good as its own thing. V is a moderately interesting character--his introduction seems to take about five minutes, what with him spouting off all sorts of things before finally introducing himself to Evey (Natalie Portman). We find he is a literate protagonist with a love for all things relating to freedom--music, poetry, literature, art, etc. Unfortunately, we don't really get a good sense of what he's thinking in the here and now, other then that he must destroy the government--both for purposes of personal revenge and also liberty for all. I think I felt this way because of all the screen time Portman's Evey gets. Meanwhile, we're left with a lot of time where V isn't there and we don't know what he's doing. He's a decent person and a monster at the same time, but they don't explore this much in favor of keeping the story moving along. Similarly, Evey could have gotten a little more exploration as well--we get a lot about her, but again it's mostly background and due to her metamorphosis throughout the story, it's hard to pin her personality down exactly either. As far as action goes, the movie delivers on every count... storywise, the plot asks some interesting questions and we get a good tale out of it all. I think the movie could've been better with a little more time in there to ponder the deeper issues--instead of just "liberty is good, the government is evil" I would've liked to have seen maybe a little more discussion of freedom versus tyranny here. Instead, the government is just evil and the Chancellor is evil in a flat, cardboard way. Still, the movie delivers like any good action flick and scratches the surface of some deeper issues. Recommended. (Mar.17/06).
