Top 10 of 2009
1) Avatar
2) Sherlock Holmes
3) Up in the Air
4) Zombieland
5) Watchmen
6) The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus
7) G.I.JOE: The Rise of Cobra
8) Up
9) Fantastic Mr. Fox
10) The Road
(Honorary mention: The Hangover, which I did not see in the theater. A good movie anyway--came out in summer 09).
Note: The Top 10 list represents movies reviewed here--that is, stuff I saw the corresponding year in the theatre. Obviously, no one can see everything and it's certain some better produced movies were missed along the way. This year's list is also different from previous years, ending at the actual end of the calendar year this time, instead of waiting until the Oscars in February/March like in previous years).
The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus. Terry Gilliam's latest film is notable for being the final film Heath Ledger made before his death (only half done when he died). Using some quick thinking, Gilliam got three other actors to portray Ledger's character in the scenes on the other side of the mirror allowing him to finish the film. The movie is full of bizarre and interesting fantasy scenes in a place that is supposed to be inside Doctor Parnassus' mind (accessible through the magical mirror in his sideshow). The story and characterization works on the whole although I suppose it might have been fleshed out a little bit better (not sure if this is due to Ledger's death hampering those efforts or just how the script was written in the first place). A decent fantasy tale and one worth seeing even though I wouldn't say it was the greatest movie I've ever seen either. It's best seen for it's fantasy segments and it's whimsy more then for it's sharp storytelling. Still, it's entertaining and fun--something that far too few films tend to be now. Recommended. (Jan. 1/10).
Sherlock Holmes. Guy Ritchie's latest film is a new take on the classic English detective made popular a century ago by Arthur Conan Doyle. Holmes (Robert Downey Jr.) and Watson (Jude Law) are more modern action stars in this film, with Watson being a more competent partner to Holmes. The classic detective work isn't ignored altogether merely takes a bit of a sideline for the action aspects. One thing I found a bit annoying was Holmes deductive reasoning in some scenes--that is, how he choreographs how he's going to attack someone, then we watch as he actually does the same thing in real time. For the first instance this was okay, but it happens three times throughout the movie and isn't really necessary--why can't we be inside his head as he actually acts, instead of having to see it all twice and waste time? Downey Jr. and Law really work well together as partners and we can see Holmes feels lost without his friend as he prepares to marry his fiance but can't quite admit it to him directly. Rachel McAdams is as lovely and charming as ever as Holmes sort-of love interest, Irene Adler. The story revolves around the apparent resurrection of Holmes' foe, Lord Blackwood and his supernatural talents as he strives to overthrow the government. The story is okay but the acting and character development is the real meat here. Definitely worth a look. Recommended. (Dec. 26/09).
Up In The Air. The latest movie from director Jason Reitman (Thank You for Smoking and Juno--haven't seen the latter) follows the life of corporate downsizer, Ryan Bingham (George Clooney). Ryan lives his life out of his suitcase; airports are his home; frequent flyer miles his passion and he has no time for other people. His detachment makes him perfect for his job--going from company to company firing people on behalf of their bosses so they can meet their corporate bottom line. All of this is threatened when a new employee at his firm, Natalie Keener (Anna Kendrick) comes up with the idea of just using teleconferencing to do the deed instead. Ryan is allowed to take Natalie along as he does his job and show her why the personal touch is important versus her new method... thanks to Natalie and a new love interest, Alex (Vera Farmiga), Ryan's cold but simplistic life philosophy is disrupted and he begins to long for a more "normal" life. This movie heavily advertises American Airlines (his frequent flyer program is with them), Hilton (his preferred hotel) and Hertz (preferred car rental place). Being a car rental person, I noted the incongruities with his car rental scenes (the whole movie is ruined!) This is an excellent and realistic look at a lonely man and the circumstances of his life. Very good human drama. Recommended. (Dec. 24/09).
Avatar. After a twelve year wait, James Cameron has finally returned to the mainstream cinema with his latest movie effort. Avatar chronicles the journey of marine Jake Sullivan as he travels to Pandora, a moon where humanity has discovered Unobtanium (great name!), a mineral that is worth a fortune even in small amounts (exactly what this stuff does is never really explained). Jake's scientist twin brother was set to go to Pandora but was killed by a thief. Since his DNA is virtually identical, Jake can use the expensive cloned body avatar designed for him instead. The avatars are larger then humans (about eight feet tall) and can be used for humans to control and move around safely in the hostile alien environment. They are also used to communicate with the local sentient lifeforms there, called the Na'vi. Once there, Jake is overjoyed by the fact he can walk again (his real body is paraplegic due to a war injury). When he ventures out into the hostile forest, Jake gets lost from his fellow avatars and meets up with Neytiri--a genuine Na'vi. she takes him back to her clan and he is allowed to stay with them to learn their ways. Little do the Na'vi realize he is also gaining military data so his side can come in and destroy their vast tree home to get at the large vein of Unobtainium beneath their home. Predictably, as he goes along and learns more and more of their people and culture, Jake goes native and forms a strong bond with the Na'vi, essentially being adopted into their clan. All of this leads to an inevitable showdown between the Na'vi and the Humans. The plot is very predictable, existing more to show off the incredible cgi (photo-realistic. The animation and live action are seamless. For $300 million, I would hope it would be though). Also, the entire movie is in 3D and looks really neat--I have never ever seen a 3D movie work so well. Absolutely everything is 3D in this movie and it enhances the look of the film rather then being a silly gimmick like in most films. Cameron really has a set a new bar with this movie (in technical terms, if not storytelling ones. Still, the story works for what it is and does it well). Definitely worth seeing in the theater if you can. Highly Recommended. (Dec. 18/09).
Fantastic Mr. Fox. The latest adaptation of one of Roald Dahl's books and it's a very good job. They took what was most certainly a simpler story and jazzed it up so an adult could enjoy it. Mr. Fox (voice of George Clooney) is the main character, a master chicken thief who gives up the dangerous life for a regular day job as a newspaper columnist in order to support his wife (voiced by Meryl Streep) who has their cub to raise and doesn't want to have to worry about her husband's life constantly. All is fine for the next couple of years but Mr. Fox is not satisfied. He moves the family out of their burrow and up to a nice new tree home. Even that doesn't totally satisfy him and finally he finds himself falling back into the old life--unknown to his wife or child. Soon enough, his bold actions bring down the wrath of the human farmers he's robbed then both the foxes and all of the forest animals must deal with the consequences. The entire movie is done up in stop-motion animation, which is a welcome change from all the CGI stuff out there now (not that I object to CGI, but why can't we still have some variety?) Well acted, well animated and entertaining. Definitely worth a look. Recommended. (Dec. 10/09).
The Road. A movie starring Viggio Mortensen as "The Man" and yet another excuse for him to grow a beard and walk around with really shaggy hair ("Honey, it's not my fault I look this way! It's for a role!") The story takes place after an unrevealed apocalyptic event destroys all of civilization as we know it. We flashback during the movie to see The Man and his wife (The Woman? The Wife? Anyway, Charlize Theron) during the early part of the disaster and it's later revealed how she gives birth to their son (yes, The Boy). She can't deal with just surviving and eventually wanders off into the night, her fate unknown (but presumed dead). As their supplies begin to run out, the Man takes the Boy and they set out for the coast and, ultimately, the south where they hope the warmer climate might mean food and a better chance at survival. First, they must navigate the twisted landscape, evading rape gangs and cannibals. It's more a story of characters reacting to their situation then an action story. Truthfully, I felt the ending could've used a bit more action to jazz things up a bit but we don't really get that. A decent tale overall and worth checking out (just be a characterization mindset, not an action one). Recommended. (Nov. 30/09).
Ninja Assassin. There's two ways to make a martial arts movie. Make it realistic or make it fantastic, where the characters are virtually superhuman. This movie, like many, chooses the latter. The ninja in this movie melt into the shadows, they are as elusive as the wind, virtually un-killable, unbelievably fast and able to heal from near-death. The action effects are a cross between the Matrix style and realistic moves (that is, somewhat realistic but computer enhanced). The story follows Raizo, a young man trained from his childhood to use the mystical arts of Ninjitsu to kill whoever his clan orders him to. As the movie goes along, we learn that the clan killed a woman he loved and when he had the opportunity, he rebelled and escaped. In the present, a Europol Agent named Mika has stumbled upon the existence of the Nine Clans and what they do for a living (kill whomever the governments that hire them want dead). The movie is definitely decent as action movies go... the story is too simplistic for my liking but it sets up the action very well. The story was by Matthew Sand and the script by Sand and J. Michael Straczynski. I'm assuming that JMS didn't completely rewrite the script, merely touched it up (frankly, I think he could have come up with a much better set up for the story then this). The movie is adequate overall but I am getting tired of martial arts movies where the practitioners of the arts are superhuman, running across treetops and flying, etc. This movie doesn't go that far but it still asks us to believe the ninjas are unstoppable killing machines (except of course when it's convenient for them die at Raizo's hand). They can move faster then a normal man, disappear in impossible circumstances, heal from mortal wounds, etc. I wish, just for once, someone would do a story where they are real humans with extraordinary skill (if I wanted a superhero movie I'd go watch one of those). Also, we don't really care all that much about Raizo or Mika for that matter as the story gives us very little reason to care for them as characters (they exist more to move the story along to the action then anything else). Mika, for example, has an Asian-sounding name but no one ever stops to tell us why this is the case in the story (is she half Japanese or something?) Also, this movie is full of severed limbs flying left and right and blood being splashed all over the place--silly looking but I guess a convention of certain martial arts movies (just like medieval movies where no one ever seems to have blood on their swords) . An okay action movie with a forgettable story. Mildly Recommended. (Nov. 26/09).
2012. One needs to forget everything they know about science when the scientists in this story start talking as none of what they say makes any sense anyway. The story is your typical disaster movie fare--the world is going to end for some reason. The government finds out about it and starts building giant arks to protect humanity's finest (and richest). The main character, Jackson Curtis (John Cusack) is a one-time writer struggling with personal problems. He's trying to get another book done but is having trouble so he works as a limo driver on the side to earn some money. His wife left him for a new guy--a plastic surgeon who treats her and her kids with Jackson just great. Jackson takes the kids on a trip to Yellowstone where he first discovers something is not quite right. He is warned by a local nutcase (played by Woody Harrelson) that the world is going to end. Soon. He takes the kids back and realizes that this is all true. He eventually gets his ex-wife, kids and her new hubby and they take a small plane away from California just as it sinks into the Earth behind them. They eventually get to Vegas and hook up with his rich Russian boss and all take a larger plane to China, where the arks are. But getting there is only half the problem--they still have to get inside in-time somehow. The story has all the cliche characters--evil guy who ultimately dies? Check. Heroic guy who dies saving others? Check. Lost love of heroic guy? Check. Expendable new spouse of our hero's ex-love? Check. I also agree with the reviewers that say this movie is too long. It's two and a half hours and they could've easily cut half an hour out (the last half hour is exciting but not really necessary given all that's already happened). Even still, the special effects are excellent and there's some truly entertaining moments--just don't think too hard about it all. The character of Jackson's ex-wife is played by Amanda Bynes (I knew she seemed familiar for some reason) and also, the chief scientist, Adrian Helmsley is played by none other then Chiwetel Ejiofor (he played "The Operative" in Serenity--the film that wrapped up Firefly). A good popcorn movie in general. Recommended. (Nov. 17/09).
Zombieland. A comedy starring Jessie Eisenberg as a college student that survived the Zombie Apocalypse and is only known in the story as "Columbus". We're introduced to his rules for surviving in this new America that he's dubbed "Zombieland" and also a brief flashback of when he was at college and first discovered the zombies. He decides to travel back to Columbus, in the hopes his parents might still be alive. He meets up with a lone Texan on the way, who goes by "Tallahassee" (Woody Harrelson). They travel together for a while even though both characters are vastly different personalities--Columbus is neurotic and a shut-in while Tallahassee is good old boy who does what he wants when he wants. Eventually they encounter two sisters--Wichita and Little Rock, who plan to travel to California and a theme park they went to years ago. The story is fairly simple in its scope--there's no radical twists or turns but that tone suites it well. It's a fun action romp with a collection of quirky characters trying to survive in a world that's stopped being normal. The characterization is well done, with each actor inhabiting their character very well. The special effects, when needed, are subtle and well executed. Definitely worth checking out. Recommended. (Oct. 15/09).
Surrogates. Set in the near-future, people have started using robotics surrogates to live their lives instead of their own natural bodies. The robots are fast, tough and can take extremes a real person can't. But not everyone thinks this way of life is a good idea and soon a conspiracy to end all surrogacy occurs. The main character is Greer (Bruce Willis), a cop who accidentally stumbles upon a murder where a surrogate was destroyed and so was it's operator along with it. A good movie overall--the surrogates manage to look not quite real despite being played by real people (good make-up, I think. All of them seem a bit too perfect looking). The story is a decent one overall with some twists and turns along the way... Given that this is the writing/directing team behind Terminator 3, I was surprised that the movie is fairly good. I do dislike the simplistic ending of movies like this--present the audience with a thought provoking problem then arrive at a really simple resolution in the end. But that's one of those conceits in this type of movie so I'm willing to overlook it. Recommended. (Sept. 25/09).
G.I.JOE: The Rise of Cobra. The latest in a line of live action re-imaginings of a classic 80s toy line. Unlike Transformers, this adaption remembered not to take itself too seriously and as a result, the movie is good. The story is coherent, the characters are likable and the humor is entertaining, instead of cringe-inducing. Most of the special effects are pretty good, although there are several instances where it's clear that the cgi models are cgi (but I can live with that). One plot weakness: Cobra's base is apparently under the North Pole. The Joes, when hearing this, comment on what a logical location it is. Except that it isn't--right now, in the real world, Canada, the U.S., Russia and others are fighting over the mineral/oil rights and shipping rights to the area. There are routinely subs and ships in the area, which would guarantee someone would notice Cobra's gigantic undersea base sooner or later (really, Antarctica would've made far more sense). I also thought Destro's ultimate fate and Cobra Commander's declaration about Cobra seemed a bit unnecessary (like the writers felt they had to cover all the bases for the viewers). Also, the prologue was completely unnecessary since Destro reiterates that same point shortly after to the Baroness and Storm Shadow anyway. Not a perfect movie but a fun popcorn movie anyway and light years better then the live-action Transformers. Recommended. (Aug. 15/09).
Harry Potter and the Half Blood Prince. The latest in the HP movie series moves the story along further. All of the regular cast is back and we find Hermoine and Ron both starting to see the appeal in one another romantically, while Harry and Ron's sister, Ginny, also begin to fall for one another. Another sub-plot is Harry finding an old spell book and using it's spells to great success. Meanwhile, the evil Voldermort continues making his move and consolidating his power in the world. This was another competently acted and shot movie in the series. It's weakness is that we know it's a series and that even this movie feels like parts of it are missing (which they are. Much of the book was cut to make it run shorter). I look forward to seeing the conclusion where Voldermort and the forces of light meet in a final climactic battle. Recommended. (July 30/09).
Public Enemies. The latest film by Michael Mann follows the career of John Dillinger, the famed 30s bank robber. Dillinger (Johnny Depp) is about robbing banks, enjoying the moment and not worrying about the future. He meets a young woman, named Billie Frechette (Marion Cotillard) who becomes his girlfriend and who he promises to take care of, no matter what... and he does, in-between bank heists and being pursued left, right and center by the FBI and the Chicago bureau head, Melvin Purvis (Christian Bale). The movie ends tragically but it well done overall, with excellent acting and cinematography. I've seen some comments that the movie treats Dillinger too superficially but as another critic put it, the movie shows us Dillinger as he was--a career criminal. Early in the movie when first meeting Billie, he gives her a summation of his early life and tells her "I like baseball, movies, good clothes, fast cars... and you. What else you need to know?" like Mann and/or Dillinger in real life didn't see that much of interest in his past to discuss. He was here and now, a criminal and having a fun doing it. What else is there? I think the movie works well as it is, for the most part. If it got any longer, it would drag and people would likely have trouble staying interested. If you want a documentary on John Dillinger, go find one. Public Enemies is an action movie with enough characterization for us to sympathize with the protagonist and understand his world. Nothing more, nothing less. And nothing else is necessary. Recommended. (July 8/09).
Up. Another in the long line of lovable Pixar movies, Up chronicles the adventures of Carl Fredricksen (Ed Asner) as he lives out his life quietly with his loving wife, until one day she passes away and he's left alone with a life long dream to visit Paradise Falls in South America (a dream both of them always clung to from childhood). To honor his dear Ellie's dream and to escape consignment to an old folk's home by some greedy land owners, he uses the balloons he's worked with all his life to escape into the air and travel south. Along the way, he accidentally picks up a wilderness scout named Russell. Eventually, they get down there and Carl plans to live near the top of the Falls. But they meet up with a strange bird and a dog named Dug, who can speak (and really steals every scene he's in). It keeps to the Pixar formula but is warm, funny and entertaining. Recommended. (June 2/09).
Night at the Museum: Battle of the Smithsonian. Why they made a sequel to a charming fantasy story like Night at the Museum is anybody's guess. I went into this expecting to hate it but found the story to be reasonably good and the acting also helped it along. Ben Stiller's character, Larry Daley, is back and is joined by several new characters, including prominent new character, Amelia Earhart (Amy Adams). This version of Earhart is both attractive and far more plucky then the aviator really was historically, but that's okay. This time, the life giving magical stone is shipped off to the Smithsonian, along with several of the exhibits from the original museum. It's up to Larry to pursue them and rescue his friends from storage while preventing a new evil from rising and using the stone to cause mayhem. A decent sequel to the original--here's hoping they leave it off here, as this premise can only be stretched so far before it gets ridiculous. Recommended. (May 31/09).
Terminator Salvation. Much to my relief and surprise, the fourth installment in the Terminator series is pretty good. This was my first exposure to McG's directing but he does a competent job behind the camera. In my opinion, there were some parts where the editing choices could've been a bit better--like where Marcus first emerges, then we switch away to something with Connor then back to Marcus all dressed now. They could have just as easily carried through with Marcus then switched to Connor for good. There was more then one circumstance where I questioned the editing choices, but these are mostly minor complaints. The acting and action scenes are all interesting and well done. The story is fairly simple and fails to really carry through on some of the deeper questions it presents--something the first two movies successfully did. Despite that, this is a competent sci-fi action flick and it works well on that level... the rise of the T-800s is chronicle near the end of this film and I enjoyed seeing that. I also liked the Schwarzenegger cameo--although one has to wonder why it's always that particular model and type sent after John Connor (that is, that specific form of T-800). There were a couple of scenes where Anton Yeltsin did a good Michael Biehn impression as Kyle Reese (otherwise, he was just a young guy character. But he doesn't have to be the Reese of the first film in the story yet anyway). If I had one real complaint about this movie is that maybe the film makers went a bit too hard on the homages. They were so busy trying to be respectful they went a bit overboard. Arnie's Terminator making a cameo in one bit was fine, but using "come with me if you want to live" and "I'll be back" as well other little nods--the Guns and Roses T2 theme song, the lava and cold scenes near the end, Sarah's tapes... we get it! Just tell the damn story already! All in all, though, a good sci-fi action movie and it blows T3 out of the water if, for nothing else, trying to advance the story and not rehash the tired time travel plot. If the next movie(s) can tell interesting stories and maybe dig a little deeper, I'll be happy. Recommended. (May 26/09).
The Soloist. The true story of a musical prodigy named
Nathaniel Ayers (Jamie Foxx) who is sidelined by schizophrenia and looses everything. A veteran columnist named Steve Lopez (Robert Downey Jr.) discovers him by accident and makes the world aware of his talents. After a while, he tries to help bring Nathaniel back to real world and help him lead a normal life again. But Nathaniel is too used to the streets and attempts to domesticate him don't go so well... this was apparently planned for a late release last year so it could be in Oscar contention. Instead it was held back. I can see why... although the acting is good and the story marginally interesting, it's worth asking why they bothered to make this movie. Every time Nathaniel seems close to a breakthrough in the story, it falls through for some reason or the other. At one point, Steve wants to get him medication--which is logical, given the circumstances, but is convinced not to. They're just a stop-gap solution and gee, what if Nathaniel loses his gifts? I think realistically, someone would've at least tried to get him to take something. Surely living like he does is worse then being numbed by drugs (I have had personal experience with relatives who have this problem and are unbearable without medication). Perhaps the fact that Nathaniel never truly finds a breakthrough and Steve just learns to accept him as he is and be his friend is why the movie doesn't work. It's real, I guess, but not satisfying. People want happy endings--or at least to feel like there was some reason they bothered in the first place and this movie really doesn't provide that. Pass. (May 19/09).
Star Trek. J.J. Abram's re-imagining of the legendary sci-fi franchise, as written by Robert Orci and Alex Kurtzman (the writing team that gave us the Transformers movies). How does it fare? The movie has lots of special effects, explosions and action. This is a modern sc-fi action flick that delivers on the popcorn-y fun. If I didn't know better, I'd have said it was an excellent Star Wars film. There are problems, of course, if one looks too closely. Spock has to try and stop "a star from going supernova and destroying the Galaxy". Wow! That's one hell of a large star there, if it can destroy the Galaxy in one shot. Klingon battle cruisers are now Klingon "Warbirds" apparently (they were previously called D-7 Battle cruisers). For some reason, Uhura's roommate in Starfleet Academy is an Orion female (which really defies previous continuity). If you plan to use "red matter" to destroy a planet by creating a black hole, remember to drill into the planet's core first and then drop the black hole creating matter in there (as opposed to just unleashing it over the planet). Where was Nero's ship for about twenty five years in the story (between the opening with the Kelvin and later on with the Enterprise)? Nero is also a very generic villain (seemingly, in keeping with the ST film tradition). On the plus side, the acting is decent throughout the movie. Quinto's Spock gets better as the film goes and Kirk is fairly consistently decent throughout the movie. I did think Uhura was maybe a bit more aggressive then her original incarnation (although this point is debatable) and the guy playing Chekov is just miscast (I also didn't care for the new Sarek that much either). Captain Pike is a good actor as well (although it seems like he's not a Captain for very long the way this movie went. Unless he's done more before taking the Enterprise's reigns?) I also don't like that the whole cast is just there, right off the bat. I preferred that some came aboard later on (technically, Scotty does in this movie anyway. But I would've preferred more of that sort of thing (of course, a two hour movie eliminates the time frame a TV show has to do such things). As I've previously said, I would've preferred they did a clean reboot movie and not tried to pander to the ST fanbase at all with some cheesy, illogical time-travel reboot nonsense. The camera work is also modern--with it's quick cuts and edits, there are times when it's hard to know what the hell is going on at all. Is it better then the original crew or their stories? Hell no! The new movie lacks the soul of the original crew and no matter what they do, I doubt the new cast/continuity is in any danger of replacing the original (especially with Kurtzman/Orci writing it). There's simply no real depth here, no time for good characterization, sense of wonderment or philosophy. Still, it was a decent SF action movie all in all (i.e. watch it and forget it). Mildly Recommended. (May 12/09).
X-Men Origins: Wolverine. A prequel story that attempts to flesh out the Wolverine character's back history further. As some reviews have pointed out, and I agree, despite going back to his childhood briefly, the movie totally glosses over his childhood and most of his life up to the sixties or so. Other nitpicks include: The Canadian Northwest Territories did not exist until 1870 (the movie says 1845 but is wrong); the Alberta license plates in the late seventies in the movie are the wrong ones (we had yellow and black ones, not white ones. In fact, we never had white ones in that era). Also, the "Canadian Rockies" looked wrong... I live near them and these didn't really resemble them (the movie was shot in New Zealand apparently). If the movie's resolution lead to the Three Mile Island incident, then the movie wraps up in 1979--so when do the other X-Men movies happen? If in the present, then Cyclops must be about forty by the time of the first movie (instead of about twenty five). Some of the effects were iffy too--a few close-up shots of Wolvie's claws looked notably bad. Also, if Wolverine and Sabertooth are Canadians--as pointed out several times in the movie--why did they fight in the American Civil War? Or Vietnam for that matter? On the good side, the acting was top-notch and Liev Schreiber's Sabertooth was excellent. Generally, overall, the movie is decent despite it's problems. The action sequences are pretty good as is the story overall--I just think someone should've done a little more research before filming it all. As my friend pointed out, being a prequel, we know Wolverine must loose his memory and Sabertooth and Stryker must survive the ending in order to be there later in the X-Men movies (interestingly, Sabertooth in X-Men had no recognition of Wolverine. Maybe he had amnesia too?) All in all, a decent effort if not a stellar one. Mildly recommended. (May 4/09).
Knowing. An interesting movie and premise. In 1959, a disturbed child writes a list of numbers on a paper and includes them in a time capsule, which is finally opened in 2009. The boy who receives the letter's father, John Koestler (Nick Cage) is a college professor who happens to notice the date of 9/11 on the list and on a lark decides to check the other dates to see if they correspond to anything too. Sure enough, each number is the date of a disaster in the last fifty years, complete with how many will die and the exact coordinates of the disasters. Three remain on the list, John realizes, and he quickly seeks them out to see if they are indeed true. The first is a plane crash right near where he is while the other is a subway crash he sought out. There is a theme here of can one change the future or is destiny undeniable? It seems the latter is true, based off the events of the film. The movie reminded me of what last year's The Happening could have been but wasn't. While that movie failed to know where it was going or what is was, this one takes itself seriously, leaving us several moments of genuine mystery and suspense. There are men in the background, in dark coats and never seeming to speak, but with an interest in John's son. Who they are and what they want is one of the better played aspects of the story. This film is easily Alex Proyas (The Crow, Dark City and I, Robot) at his best. Some of the special effects in places could've been better (too cgi looking) but that's a minor complaint at most. I do have one problem with the film--and that is the ending. It works with what's come before and indeed seems a logical ending but one has to wonder why this was the best outcome they could've engineered while knowing for at least 2000 years prior what was to come. It also reinforces the idea that destiny is destiny and nothing can change it, which many people dislike as an idea and would actively try to refute (myself included). Still, it's an interesting movie and worth checking out. Recommended. (Apr. 1/09).
Watchmen. The film adaption of the greatest graphic novel of all time. I've read some mixed reviews online but after having seen it myself, I'd say it's largely successful at adapting the source material into a coherent and entertaining film. The movie does compress some things but at a run time of two and a half hours, that's inevitable. All the important notes are struck and the movie works. I did think the opening with The Comedian could've been slightly trimmed... The special effects are top notch and the story makes you think with it's complex characters and multiple layers. A long film but a good one. Highly recommended. (Mar. 7/08).
The International. A thriller about Interpol agent Louis Salinger (Clive Owen) and New York Assistant D.A Eleanor Whitman (Naomi Watts) as they investigate a corrupt international bank that may be dealing arms to increase it's global power. The movie is a fairly good story, if not overly original (I mean, it's nothing we haven't seen before). The acting is also competent although we don't get more then surface characterization for why the characters are doing what they are--sufficient for the story but not in-depth either. The story is pretty good and ends on a somewhat sombre but realistic note. Not outstanding but a decent distraction with some good moments of action. Recommended. (Feb. 24/09).
