Of all the top ten lists posted on this site thus far, the 2009 list is probably one of the most difficult to create. Several films seemed on the borderline, and I was quite unsure of the ordering for a little while. And now, six days late, I've finally been able to pull it together, despite how messy it may be. Some of the films I loved... some were more eh. But fortunately, all of them are good, coming from a variety of genres. And the films at the top of the list are hopefully some of the most surprising highly-ranked films, as far as these lists go. Here are contained some material by familiar directors: Soderbergh, Miyazaki, and the Coens, particularly- but also some work from some very new talents, like Neill Blomkamp's District 9, as well as the star vehicle Zombieland, which reportedly has a sequel in the works.Judging as to how long it took to write these, I don't think I can give much more in the way of an intro. All I can say is: I hope that if you've seen any of these, that you enjoyed them just as much as I did, if not more. And until the next posting, peace.
10. District 9
Director: Neill Blomkamp
Starring: Sharlto Copley, Jason Cope, David James
Release Date: August 14, 2009
Running Time: 112 minutes
Rating: 4/5
There's no denying that District 9 holds a large place in recent sci-fi history; it's left an enormous imprint on the entire genre and is a hard film to forget due to its original concepts and thought-provoking social themes. Yet in spite of the immense praise that it received at the time of its release, the critical reception of films such as Elysium and Chappie have led me to question if perhaps Blomkamp is the kind of magician that can only perform one trick: all of his films seem to contain themes of race and class, set in a dry dusty environment inundated with elaborate computer generated technology and explosive action sequences. I admit I haven't seen the latter two films in their entirety, but it's justifiable to wonder if perhaps people responded so strongly to District 9 because it was the first time they'd seen the trick- the achievement of creating a film like District 9 is less impressive when you realize that it's the only kind of film Blomkamp can make. I was originally excited about seeing District 9 when I noticed that it was the only movie I could find that centered around the idea of an alien spaceship landing in another country besides America. Then I started watching it. Within the first ten minutes, I'm told that the alien spaceship didn't descend directly from the stars and stop over Johannesburg by pure coincidence- instead, it coasted over several of the world's famous cities first- and then came to a stop over Johannesburg for no reason. I have no time to nitpick every plot-hole and detail in this film; but this ridiculous embellishment shows us so clearly the frailty of the logic that lies beneath the film's overwhelming facade. The ship is low on fuel, so why waste fuel by flying over New York and London just to choose Johannesburg instead? Did the aliens like Johannesburg because it reminded them of their home planet? Unlikely. Like many of the things that happen within this film, the only reason they are happening is so that Blomkamp can make painfully obvious apartheid metaphors. He selects one of the most gruesome and repulsive exteriors for the aliens (as if having aliens that resembled insects was anything new) and yet endows them with behavior that is not only human, but particularly designed to conjure up images in our heads of specific ethnic groups. I can't tell you how many times aliens do things in this movie for no purpose other than advancing Blomkamp's social commentary about slums and racism. I'm not saying that good social commentary shouldn't be made- what I'm saying is that when social commentary is as obvious as it is in District 9, it should no longer deserve to be described as "poignant" or "clever". Another thing that annoyed me was the frame for the storytelling. The film starts off as if it's a documentary: a man identified as Wikus van der Merwe is assigned with the task of evicting and deporting the aliens from one slum to another. As Wikus moves from one alien slum to another, we begin to see things that are clearly seen through an objective lens as opposed to the subjective lens of the film crew that's following our protagonist- yet the camera retains its shaky documentary style, giving us no hint of whose eyes we're actually looking through. Later, the story takes a shocking and repulsive turn by exposing the bumbling bureaucrat Wikus to a strange substance which begins to transform him into an alien; making him the new victim of the government's attention. At this point, all traces of documentary have vanished, but only so they can obnoxiously reappear at the film's ending. District 9 may feature narrative inconsistencies, an indecisive tone, and a shit-ton of preachiness. But it remains a stronger sci-fi film than its "smarter", more ambitious contemporary Moon because it knows how to tell a story. Yes, it will most definitely nauseate most people, but that demonstrates how well it involves people. District 9 is definitely overrated, but I can still recommend it based on its fresh ideas and its ability to leave a lasting impact on everyone who sees it.
Director: Steven Soderbergh
Starring: Matt Damon, Scott Bakula, Joel McHale
Release Date: September 18, 2009
Running Time: 108 minutes
Rating: 4/5
Imagine a spy movie about the most boring thing ever- whatever you've just imagined probably isn't too far off from Steven Soderbergh's true-crime comedy The Informant!- except that this film is nowhere near as boring as you'd think it is. The Informant! centers on a corporate price-fixing scandal that happened in the mid-90's, executed by agricultural-industrial giant ADM, perhaps the nation's largest supplier for lysine (a food additive extracted from corn). I'll note here that though the company operates in food processing, there are about ninety shots of office interiors for every one shot of a cornfield. Individually, maybe the ADM scandal cost us a few cents more for food items than we should have been paying, but collectively, it cost us billions. I don't know how much of a buzz this event caused on the news at the time, but after about fifteen years, most traces of the crisis have blown over, even for many of the people who were actively involved in it. So the fact that The Informant! can resurrect an event that practically no one cares about anymore and still manage to keep the audience from losing interest is really something to take into consideration. This feat seems effortless when you're actually watching the film: the secret lies, I think, within the consistent tongue-and-cheek tone, which carries through even to the film's trailer and promotional artwork. Mark Whitacre (played by an unrecognizable Matt Damon) is originally presented as a quirky, likable character who is simply "trying to do the right thing", someone whose ignorance allows him to romanticize the importance of his own actions as two FBI agents employ him as an informant to tap wires, hide cameras, and record company meetings all with the most discreet care. However, as the company's house of cards begins to fall, some of Whitacre's own dark secrets are brought into light, and the comedy is instantly subverted. No longer is he the object of some bitter joke of the story- instead, Whitacre is gradually revealed to be a complex man with some serious unaddressed mental issues. We're guided through the utter indecipherable mess that is global economics, but we don't have to pay attention to the business side of the story because we'd much rather be distracted by Whitacre's internal monologue, which is almost never about the subject at hand. We're entertained instead with his personal thoughts about polar bears and the odd things he's encountered on his trips to Tokyo. The Informant! is the kind of movie that you will probably forget about the morning after you see it. I know I did. It's kind of there for its own sake; this is to say, it's perfect at doing at exactly what it aims to do, and we know from Soderbergh's track record that he enjoys creating films that dissolve into the shadows, no matter the genre. But if any one thing about this movie were to be changed, it would be a complete failure. If the comedy were diminished, it would be unwatchable; if the comedy were increased, it would be insensitive. The Informant! is remarkable in its ability to portray the duality of a character subtly, giving us hints early on that our hero is not just lying to other people; he's also lying to himself. No other biographical film can work the magic of storytelling quite like this. The Informant! knows how to keep us passively amused while also quietly engaging in thought about what we're seeing... and what we're not seeing.
Director: Guy Ritchie
Starring: Robert Downey Jr., Jude Law, Rachel McAdams, Mark Strong
Release Date: December 25, 2009
Running Time: 128 minutes
Rating: 4/5
Each new vision of the classic Sherlock Holmes stories adds something to the constantly expanding universe that has been built up around the world's most famous detective. The old Basil Rathbone films perfected the design of the characters, while the Jeremy Brett television series can be praised for being closest to the books. The recent BBC TV series boasted the acting talents of Benedict Cumberbatch and Martin Freeman, and brought to life the characters with more life and depth than we had ever seen in them before. So where does Guy Ritchie's 2009 Sherlock Holmes fit into all this? Of course, the first thing that anyone can talk about when discussing a Sherlock Holmes adaptation is the performance of the actor entrusted with portraying the legend himself- in this case, Robert Downey Jr. Now first off, Downey Jr. doesn't seem at all like the pale eccentric intellectual we all love- he's too flashy, flamboyant, and conceited. He's too... cool-looking. This is your typical Hollywood prima donna A-lister in the shoes of a feeble recluse. We know Sherlock Holmes excels in many things, but we generally assume fist-fighting is not one of them. This doesn't stop the film from including an irresistibly well-directed fight scene where we see Sherlock's fast thinking practically slow down time to determine the speed of the other person, the force of the impact, and the vulnerable spots of his opponent. What we have here is the character of the calculating genius modified to be a character who's a calculating genius and an action badass. And yet, in terms of pass or fail, I can't say I'm disappointed. About five minutes in, you may say to yourself, "this isn't Sherlock." But halfway through the movie, you've accepted it, and you've most likely enjoyed accepting it. This is Sherlock. Though the BBC Sherlock might play things a bit more subtly (up until the train-wreck of a third season, that is), Robert Downey Jr.'s trademark portrayal of the smooth and cocky expert is able to highlight the more dysfunctional aspects of Sherlock's personality, and yet he still has the opportunity to be truly heroic as his human side is brought out through Dr. Watson (played by Jude Law, who is clearly aware of the function of the Watson character as an audience stand-in). Yes, of all Sherlocks, the iconic sleuth is never as crazy and energetic as he is here- which is for the best, as the same can also be said for the insane amount of effort that was invested into the film's visual style. I refer not only to Guy Ritchie's strikingly active camera techniques, but also to the intricate detail of every set piece. Here we see Sherlock's mind as shown to us through his living space, filled with all sorts of strange jars, small devices, and unfinished science experiments. The dazzle of Sherlock and Watson's cramped living space pales, of course, in comparison to the city of London as presented here a bustling, smoke-filled monstrosity that has more moving parts and dark crevices than the most complex machine. The artistic design, especially in concern to one particular gadget that features largely in the plot, could very well be placed under the sci-fi alternate-history aesthetic known as "steampunk", and if not that, then something very close to it. Each frame is brushed with so many dark tones that describing the tone as "gothic" is inevitable, even more so when the occult fraternity at the center of the mystery is taken into account. Though it does stray down some dark passages, the spirit of the original stories is kept more or less intact, as Sherlock retains his ability to provide logical explanations for supposedly supernatural circumstances. The story has many threads, but they all wind together in the end, slowly and surely, while still keeping us on the edge of our seat right up to the climactic showdown. It may be overshadowed by other versions, but Guy Ritchie's Sherlock Holmes is still special in its own way, and its decidedly fresh take on the subject material is sure to generate appeal no matter how many more adaptations are made.
Director: Joel Coen, Ethan Coen
Starring: Michael Stuhlbarg, Aaron Wolff, Fred Melamed, Adam Arkin
Release Date: October 2, 2009
Running Time: 106 minutes
Rating: 4/5
It's impossible to fit the work of the Coen Brothers into any specific genre or category. But if you've seen a few of their films, you might know what to expect: a rollercoaster of a plot, zany characters, gritty subject matter, standard dark humor, beautiful direction, and a certain level of quality. All together, most of their films: Raising Arizona, Fargo, The Big Lebowski, O Brother Where Art Thou, and True Grit- can be more or less summed up as delightful thrill rides. Even the unsettling Barton Fink can more or less fall under this description, though as far as thrill rides go, it's one of the more frightening variety. Many critics have praised and lauded A Serious Man because it's one of the few films they've done that's really broken this formula. It still retains the technical mastery and dark humor of a Coen film, but here you'll find the usual light-hearted capers are replaced with a much quieter and bleaker story. Hence critics might assume that by adopting a more serious tone, the Coen Brothers have adopted more serious subject matter... this is not the case. Tackling difficult subjects is something that these directors have always done, and A Serious Man is no more or less profound than any of their other films. But it is more personal. And what's more is that the thought-provoking nature of the story still works to its benefit. Of course, I'm getting ahead of myself. A Serious Man delves into the Jewish background of its directors, set in the strangely serene 1960's suburban Minnesota. Its hero: Larry Gopnik, physics professor and father of two. His wife tells him that she wants a divorce, his neighbors are getting on his last nerve, a student is trying to blackmail him, and the faculty board at his university has been receiving letters defaming him. What more could go wrong? It seems the vast majority of the film deals with answering this question. Meanwhile, Larry's own problems are mirrored by the trials of his son Danny, who has been doing weed behind the back of the rest of his family, and is relentlessly preparing himself for his Bar Mitzvah rituals. In the midst of all these problems, Larry begins to seek help from several different rabbis, each more unhelpful than the last. Now honestly, I don't even think that Fiddler on the Roof is as profoundly Jewish as this film is. Consider how the film begins: with an old Jewish folk tale detailing a Jewish couple who invite a man into their house, uncertain of whether or not he is a dybbuk (demon/ghost). The husband treats the man with tentative hospitality; the wife, certain the stranger is a demon, stabs him with an ice pick. Now if the man was a dybbuk, then he would have certainly brought a curse with him upon the household. But if the man was not a dybbuk, then the murder would have also certainly brought a curse on the house as well. The film is underscored with a theme of uncertainty: only the results we see are certain; what caused them, we may never know. This small fable is preceded by the proverb "Receive with simplicity everything that happens to you." While we can never be sure of why things happen to us, there is only one thing that we can do in response to what does happen: receive it with simplicity. Philosophical in many places, the narrative never misses an opportunity to allude to divine matters without directly addressing them, presenting us with a final product that, though immensely straightforward in its storytelling, still leaves us searching for interpretations. A Serious Man has been described as a dark comedy. While there may be some humor here and there, one would have to have a very sick sense of humor to see it as such.
Director: Hayao Miyazaki
Starring: Noah Cyrus, Frankie Jonas, Tina Fey, Liam Neeson, Cate Blanchett
Release Date: August 14, 2009
Running Time: 103 minutes
Rating: 4.5/5
Ponyo sits in a strange place in the chronology of Hayao Miyazaki's career, at a time that could arguably be described as his waning period- that is, almost a decade since the peak of his career with Princess Mononoke and Spirited Away, but still a good few years before his final film The Wind Rises. At this point, the last film Miyazaki had made was Howl's Moving Castle, which, though perhaps the favorite Ghibli film of many fans, was underwhelming when compared to most of his most celebrated work, repeating the ideas of countless earlier Ghibli films- a protagonist trying to lift a curse whilst traveling a mysterious landscape of colorful characters, crazy inventions, and mischievous
magic- in other words, it failed to really venture into any new territory. Ponyo is a full turn in the other direction, resembling practically no other work that director Miyazaki (or Ghibli, for that matter) has ever produced. Frequently, Miyazaki turns our attentions to the forests of legends or to his true passion- the world of the air. This time, the environmental message is continued, but against the radiant backdrop of the sea. Some see the story as a retelling of Hans Christian Anderson's "The Little Mermaid", and while there may be some similarities, the adaptation is very loose at best. Personally, I don't really see the film as being a story at all. Yes, there is a story by technical definition- Ponyo, the daughter of the sea king Fujimoto swims to shore and is rescued by a small boy Sosuke. In her normal form, Ponyo resembles a small fish with a human face- a strange but imaginative representation of a mermaid, I suppose. But once Ponyo is reclaimed by the ocean, her love begins to transform her and she breaks free from her father's hold, bringing a tsunami with her. However, this is a magic tsunami, and despite flooding the seaside town, most people seem more or less unaffected by it- the same cannot be said for some unfortunate (but ironic) events that took place in Japan just two years after the film's release. Ponyo, now a human, reunites with Sosuke, who realizes that he must prove his love to her if the two are to continue their friendship. Most love stories are about adults or teenagers- Moonrise Kingdom and Let the Right One In are good examples of the few romance films that take it down to the years of 11 and 12. Ponyo is a love story between kindergarteners. I'm not sure how I feel about that. The elements of Ponyo's plot sound so simple, but when presented in a world that seems to belong more to the parents than it does to the children (those who have seen it should notice how Sosuke's human parents and Ponyo's magical parents are both surprisingly well-developed as far as parents in a children's film go; magic powers or no, both have strangely similar problems with their relationships), many of its elements come off as just incredibly odd. As a whole, it's too serious and modern to be a complete fairy tale, and it's too much like a fairy tale to full connect with its magic realism tone. So, winding back to what I mentioned earlier, there may be a story in Ponyo, but it's more helpful to see it as a ballet with dialogue: a symphony of sight and sound, if you will. Yes, we may not be able to directly perceive the characters onscreen as dancing, but that doesn't mean that they aren't. And because the film happens to be animated, every cloud, every little moving thing in the background is a carefully controlled part of this choreography. You could see Ponyo backwards, out of order, or in its original Japanese without subtitles. You would still get the same complete experience, because every beautiful moment in the art or music just draws us back so well to the dream of tender and innocent love at the film's center.
Director: Stephane Aubier, Vincent Patar
Starring: Stephane Aubier, Vincent Patar, Bruce Ellison
Release Date: October 28, 2009
Running Time: 75 minutes
Rating: 4.5/5
There's a scene at the beginning of Toy Story 3 which I like to call "the sandbox mode scene"- the term "sandbox mode" being derived from an option in video games where you can turn of the main story of the game and just do what you want; let your imagination run free. As opposed to the first two films in the trilogy, which simply show the toys in Andy's hands, Toy Story 3 shows the toys playing in the "sandbox" of Andy's mind- no strings visible, imagination let loose with full speed and full power. Panique au Village is much what that would look like if it were a full-length movie. There is no overarching story, the characters just kind of move around and create chaos. Or, to be more specific: a house is shared by Cowboy, Indian, and Horse. Horse is more or less the adult in the family; Cowboy and Indian are the "children" whose antics continually spiral into disaster. When Cowboy and Indian discover that they've forgotten Horse's birthday, they immediately go into a panic, trying to scramble something together at the last minute. They decide to build him a barbecue, so they order some bricks online- of course, they mess up and order 50 million bricks instead of 50. Every time a problem is solved in the film, a new one is created, much like an episodic screwball comedy. There's a form of logical progression between the small "episodes" within the film, but there's practically no connection with what the characters are doing in one scene and what they're doing ten minutes later. The journey of the whole film takes us to a convenient store at the bottom of the ocean, the center of the earth, and the frozen wastelands of the Antarctic. When a giant robot penguin is introduced, built by a mad scientist to bombard his enemies with giant snowballs, we're not surprised. While it is animated and much of the film certainly seems childish, I truly believe that this film can be enjoyed just as well by adults. It's a rare thing in film for a narrative to truly let loose and transition into something that's simply pure entertainment- and that's what this movie is. Every insane moment of it is enjoyable, and every moment really is insane. Vending machines house giant waffles, horses play pianos, cars bounce up and down when loud music is played, and best of all, when a cell phone falls into lava, lava comes out the other end of the telephone line and firefighters have to come and extinguish it. The humor is surreal and nonsensical, but this should be nothing strange to Monty Python fans. It's all done in primitive claymation, but this should be nothing strange to those familiar with "Robot Chicken". Free from all of the commercial packaging of American animated films, it doesn't try to satiate the desires of any niche target audience- rather, it does its best to appear purely experimental. In technical terms then, this could really be called European art house (in which case, it's European art house at its best). Panique au Village deserves to be classified as fundamentally a comedy- and yet, no other comedy film I've seen lets out all the stops quite like this one does.
Director: Andrea Arnold
Starring: Katie Jarvis, Kierston Wareing, Michael Fassbinder
Release Date: September 11, 2009
Running Time: 123 minutes
Rating: 4.5/5
There are some signature elements of neorealism that make it easy to spot: acting that seems unprofessional, on-location filming, and an overall style that aims to create a documentary with an invisible film crew, replacing the narration with narrative. But the best way of defining the movement concisely might be to say that it aims to tell the story of those who will never have their story told otherwise. Some of the earliest neorealist films- The 400 Blows, Bicycle Thieves, and Tokyo Story- have since been regarded as some of the finest masterpieces cinema has to offer us... modern films like Rahmin Bahrani's Chop Shop, however, might take longer to attain such a status. Fish Tank continues in the methods of neorealism, but like Chop Shop, exhibits something distinctly modern about it. There's this moment at the end of Fish Tank where the heroine Mia comes downstairs, ready to leave her house to set off on her own. Her mother is listening to one Mia's hip-hop CDs, something that she never does. (It's significant to know at this point that Mia expresses her frustrations through dancing to hip-hop). As rapper Nas sings, "life's a bitch, and then you die," it's somehow one of the most powerful uses of music that I've seen in film. Mia and her mother, who have been in conflict for the entire film, are now dancing in harmony, united by the fact that arches over the whole film, that life has been a bitch to both of them. Sometimes the pain of life pulls us apart, and other times it draws us together. Now I've just told you the ending to the whole movie, practically. And yet I still haven't told you anything, because Fish Tank is a not a movie that is defined by its ending, or its beginning, or any one part of it. It's really more of an examination of the human struggle in general, and just when you think you've found the true meaning of the film in one scene, it reveals itself to be something else in an earlier or later scene. Parallels are drawn between the human characters and the animals they interact with. Mia feels connected to a tethered horse in an empty lot near the mobile homes. Her sister is associated with the hamster she keeps in her room, while her mother's boyfriend Conor (the most seductive Michael Fassbinder has given us yet) is visually tied to the fish that he catches by the lake. Strangely enough, halfway through the film, when the characters are all sitting in the car together, they're asked which animal they would like to be the most, if they could be any animal. The answer that each character gives is pretty much the exact opposite of the animal they're already symbolically linked to. Hint: Mia wants to be a tiger. As Mia slowly and unconsciously begins to develop a relationship with Conor, one can notice how Conor is standing between Mia and her mother in practically every frame where the three of them together. But let's get back to that idea of neorealism. What makes Fish Tank particularly beautiful though is its ability to represent the living situations of people that you know are real, but you might not be able to see, assuming you're the average middle-class moviegoer. The story is one that could take place in a variety of settings, but every room, every street, every frame of Fish Tank presents a social argument about poverty that never needs to be said out loud. This is socio-political commentary at its best- an objective photograph powerful enough to provoke a reaction in anyone, regardless of political stance- but in the absence of politics can still have possess value as a story for its honest portrait of poisonous relationships and human behavior in general, between all its frailty and ferocity.
Director: Marc Webb
Starring: Joseph Gordon-Levitt, Zooey Deschanel, Chloe Grace Moretz
Release Date: August 7, 2009
Running Time: 95 minutes
Rating: 4.5/5
It's funny how (500) Days of Summer is still classified by many people as a romantic comedy, when the narrator tells you within the opening five minutes that the movie is "not a love story" in the least. Of course, people can be most easily deceived when the movie itself is actively trying to deceive you. The movie builds itself up to be a rom-com, and then takes a wild spin in the other direction. Hence I call it the perfect "anti-rom-com". The film has been compared, in particular, to Annie Hall and High Fidelity- wonderfully enough, the film happens to have the humor of one and the heart of the other. What should stand out from the start is the film's non-chronological narrative. The film begins by introducing the two characters and then giving us a quirky five-second backstory of each of them. Then, it takes us to twelve days before the end of the relationship, then to the midpoint, then somewhere near the beginning- highlighting specific memories of happiness and sadness and contrasting them selectively. We see the story, and it's simple: boy meets girl, just like that. But in real life, the story isn't so simple. Summer (Zooey Deschanel) doesn't believe in love; she treats relationships casually and lives in the moment. Tom (Joseph Gordon-Levitt), on the other hand, is a hopeless romantic who believes that she can change. Hence, we're left dangling- the movie's unconventional stance gives us the cue that anything is possible, hinting strongly towards one ending in some scenes, and hinting strongly towards an entirely different ending in others. Expectations juxtapose with reality, showing us that how Tom perceives things (and therefore, how the story perceives them) are not necessarily how things actually are. The story is presented non-chronologically because memory is an unreliable narrator. I recently loaned a friend a copy of this movie, and he returned it to me along with a sonnet (written in impeccable iambic pentameter) that the film inspired him to write. The point is, (500) Days of Summer can reach us emotionally in ways that very many similar films often completely fail to do- and it's not done through orchestral cues and sunset-illuminated kisses. Instead, the power of this film lies in its honesty. Many of us have been in situations exactly like this- and this movie not only summons back those memories, but maybe it shows us a side to those memories that we haven't seen before. The film never fails to generate a laugh, either: two key moments jump out to me in my memories of it, that is, the dream sequence in the theater, and the fantasy segue where Tom imagines the entire city dancing along with him Broadway-musical style. But funny as it is, you'll find that (500) Days also hardly fails to summon a few tears. Beautifully constructed and written, this anti-rom-com contains just as much wisdom as it does cleverness, bound to entertain both the intellect and the heart.
Director: Zach Snyder
Starring: Jackie Earle Haley, Jeffrey Dean Morgan, Billy Crudup, Malin Akerman
Release Date: March 6, 2009
Running Time: 162 minutes
Rating: 5/5
From what I've observed, most superhero movies follow pretty much the same storyline. There's an average Joe who, through some incident, gains great power, uses it to fight evil, encounters a clear-cut villain, fights him, and in the end defeats him. I don't know how many times I've described this formula in my reviews. But there's safety in formula; people go to superhero movies to see familiar faces defending our country, supporting our belief systems, protecting our lives. They don't usually go to a superhero movie to be intellectually challenged. Superheroes have basically become the standard staple of matinee cinema- it's violent enough to give you thrills, but clean enough so that you can take your kids. In short, simple movies with a simple view of morality that reward you with a happy ending every time. There's nothing inherently wrong with this, of course- simplicity can be powerful when done right. But it's become painfully repetitive. This is why I love Watchmen: the superhero film that exists mainly as a huge middle-finger to this type of movie. Everything decision that was made during its production, marketing, and release was bold and rebellious. Its R-rating, which scared away half its original audience, liberated the film to tread in territory the Dark Knight and X-Men films could only dream of setting foot in... allowing for some particularly creative violence. I don't know of one actor in this movie that's been in anything else but this movie- by using unknowns, Watchmen doesn't distracting us with recognizable faces. But what should upset Marvel fangirls more than anything about Watchmen is its ending. Because in the end, we're not really sure if anyone really was a "villain" or if anyone was really a "hero". The complex moral dilemma presented shatters both of those terms. What we see here instead is a deconstruction of the superhero as a cultural icon: every member of the Watchmen can simply be described as someone who is "trying to do what's right." The problem is, that phrase means different things to different people. And that's the beauty of the team: each of them is meant to present a drastically different view of the world, so that there's always someone you can identify with. Many superhero films will lean too far to the comic-book edge, while other films will try to make their subject matter more serious and dark in attempt to enhance the realism of the story. Watchmen avoids the need for compromise by drawing from one of the most dark graphic novelists of all time, Alan Moore. If not directly inspired, it can be said that Nolan at least used Alan Moore's Batman comic "The Killing Joke" as a loose template for The Dark Knight. Watchmen, on the other hand, is supposedly almost panel-for-panel from the comic strip. This smart decision can be attributed to Zach Snyder, known for his rigorous visual adherence to source material in 300, which was also known for its brilliant special effects. Just as impressive are the special effects we see here- the balance between CGI and traditional special effects is so carefully employed that the experience is never anything less than immersive. And what a world we're immersed in: an alternate history 1980's where Richard Nixon keeps getting re-elected and superheroes have fallen out of legal approval and public favor. These former heroes live in the shadows now: some of them are still in action (illegally), some have retired, some work for the government. When one of them is mysteriously murdered, they must band together to uncover the conspiracy behind it and save the world from the most horrific of catastrophes. Watchmen may just be the most ignored film of its genre, but it still leaves us with remarkable characters and striking images that are sure to live on in the cult following.
Director: Ruben Fleischer
Starring: Jessie Eisenberg, Woody Harrelson, Emma Stone, Abigail Breslin, Bill Murray
Release Date: October 2, 2009
Running Time: 87 minutes
Rating: 5/5
There are many films which have attempted the combination of horror and comedy, but only one, in my opinion, truly excels above the rest: and that film is Zombieland. We are presented with a horrific event: the apocalypse itself, come to America in the form of zombies. The magnitude of the event is very soon downplayed and deconstructed over the course of the film through quirky characters and good old-fashioned slapstick comedy- but not too soon. If there is a genius balance in this film, the balance is not between laughs and thrills, but between the serious and the hilarious. The key to any story is investing us in the characters, but this task is all the more difficult when working within the genre of horror. Often, the focus gradually shifts to the imminent threat, and away from the people trying to fight back against it. This is not the case in Zombieland: our characters are aware that forming serious connections with people will likely result in emotional pain, considering that they could get killed off at any moment, so they name themselves after places they associate themselves with (yeah, it's interesting, but can you stop for a moment and think about how tragic that is?). Strangely enough, unlike most zombie film heroes, we can actually remember their names: Columbus,
Tallahassee, Wichita, and Little Rock. I am, of course, tentative about calling this a comedy "horror" film to begin with- there is a lot of gore, but the zombies are more a source of thrills and adrenaline than they are a source of genuine terror. What's worth noting is that most zombies in movies seem relatively unthreatening because of their slow pace- this film picks up the pace by making its zombies fast, violent killing machines. But the main attraction of the film may very well be the character-driven humor: the first character we see calls himself Columbus (Jesse Eisenberg). He's the nerdy guy, who's survived the apocalypse through use of some very nifty safety rules, which are creatively delivered to us through use of floating text, some examples being: "Rule #1: Cardio", "Rule #2: Double Tap", "Rule #4: Seatbelts", etc, etc. Columbus quickly comes across Tallahassee (Woody Harrelson), a tough confident redneck, gun in one hand, cowboy hat in the other. Tallahassee's secret wish? Find and devour the world's last box of Twinkies. Together, they encounter two girls (played by Emma Stone and Abigail Breslin) and proceed to search for a safe haven from the chaos of "Zombieland" that crumbles around them. This naturally leads them to Beverly Hills where they crash at the seemingly empty house of celebrity Bill Murray. Prepare yourselves for the most amazing self-cameo in any movie, ever. The narrative is episodic, much like a road movie, except set in a wasteland beautifully designed like no other. There are very few key plot points, and they're set very far apart from one another, mirroring the empty post-apocalyptic aesthetic that pervades the film. And as the characters play off each other and develop a dynamic, things begin building up to an unforgettable climax that takes place in a more perfect place to kill zombies than you could have ever imagined. But what is most surprising of all about this movie is its ability to keep its characters human in the midst of all the panic. These aren't just your typical action zombie-slaying heroes- you can sense that there's a deeper layer to their stories here, that these are people who have had to watch their families die (or worse) at the hands of a soul-scarring epidemic. It's true, most of the movie is us just watching them have fun, but don't we all need to find some laughter in the silver linings of life's tragedies? Columbus, Wichita, Tallahassee- you feel for them because somehow you pick up on the fact that they're messing around to obscure the greater trauma they've all been through. All in all, Zombieland remains a worthy modern cult classic, and the perfect introductory film for anyone new to the zombie genre.
-Julian Rhodes
No comments:
Post a Comment