Just wishing all you glorious chaps a happy holidays and announcing that Shit You Heart at Parties will return in early 2010 with a series of 2000-2009 retrospective lists from best albums to best films.
Here's hoping you've all got something nice to look forward to under the tree tomorrow morning, but in the meantime, here's a festive tune to sip egg nog to.
Best reissue (music): Philip Glass - Koyaanisqatsi (Complete Original Soundtrack)
The 90s was by far the greatest decade for North American animation. Sure, most enthusiasts of conventional cartooning like to push the 40s and 50s, and the nostalgia geeks always jump for the 80s, but the 90s is where cartoons evolved beyond merely being something for or directed to children and narrative replaced the importance of visuals. The now widely reviled MTV was home to many of these excellent and challenging new series, with the bizarre anti-humour of Beavis and Butt-head somehow breaking the mainstream, and the now legendary Liquid Television giving amateur directors a chance to have their creations broadcast to a wide audience. From these two shows spun off two more brilliant series. Liquid Television bore Oddities, which combined an ongoing version of former one-time cartoon The Head with an ambitious interpretation of one of the most esoteric, deeply cerebral and audience-unfriendly comics ever, Sam Kieth's The Maxx. Years later, after Beavis and Butt-head finished, one of its writers, Greg Eichler (who also story editor on The Maxx) gave the world Daria (quite possibly the single most 90s animated series there has ever been, with its plotting focused almost entirely Gen X angst and the music of the decade).
[Note: The flicks aren't in a best-to-least-best order; "Black Dynamite" is our pick for #1 but the rest are pretty much in random order.]
1. Black Dynamite
Black Dynamite is a must-see for comedy fans, blaxploitation enthusiasts and even you people out there who've seen every cheesy Shaw Bros. kung-fu flick. If Michael Jai White doesn't go on to a long and successful career as an action star after this flick, there is no justice in the world. With the body, martial arts experience (seven goddamn black belts) and comedic timing necessary to hold the audience's attention, White is one of the single most appealing male leads I've seen in a film in the past, well, forever. Filmed entirely on old cameras with 70s stock on a $2.9 million budget, Black Dynamite builds its appeal on its low-rent charm and with the amazing funk stylings of Adrian Younge and some painfully oldschool art direction and costuming, you could probably convince yourself this movie is a lost classic from the early 70s. I refuse to spoil anything here in terms of the plot or gags though, it is definitely something you need to go into knowing as little as possible about it. The element of surprise is what makes the humour succeed, you almost never see the jokes coming. The martial arts choreography also deserves note for alternately being believable and hilariously poor, just like the best of the classic fight fests. After a decade of inept parody films that rely too heavily on pop culture nods to stand on their own, a film like Black Dynamite is a breath of fresh, malt liquor-scented air.
JB says: Couldn't agree more. We'd been anticipating "Black Dynamite" very, very eagerly since we first saw the trailer, and it exceeded our expectations by a mile. The film is impeccably styled so as to be a true feast for blaxploitation aficionados, but never falls too far into niche appeal. It's as much fun for the newcomers as it is for the geeks. It can hang with the best of 'em in terms of quotability; damn near every line is a classic. And of course, Jai White nails the role, fitting the classic blaxpoitation mold to a tee, with tongue just far enough in cheek - and the serious action chops don't hurt either. And like Sluncho, I'll keep quiet as to the specifics of the plot; "Black Dynamite" is jam-packed with surprises, each one better than the last.
2. The Informant!
This is some straight-up surprising shit here, as great as the ads looked, I would have never expected that I was going to find a movie starring Matt Damon as a middle-aged, bipolar corporate crook would be one of the most funny and compelling flick of the year. The throwback styling is impeccable, with a wonderful score by Academy Award nominee Marvin Hamlisch (his first big-screen work in 13 years) and Steven Soderbergh's obsessive direction and deliberately outdated cinematography make it one of the most believable period flicks in recent memory, successfully creating a film that looks like the early 90s without pandering too much to cliches about the era. Damon's turn as Mark Whitacre shows he has much natural comedic ability (the internal monologue is excellent) and could really benefit from some more funny roles, and the supporting cast (particularly Scott Bakula) nails it, there's not a weak link there. The subject matter is fairly esoteric, but once you get past that you're left with an immensely satisfying and very funny based on a true story crime caper that anyone can enjoy.
JB says: I have to hand it to Matt Damon; I never really gave the man a second thought as an actor. The Bourne movies are some of the best action flicks this decade, for sure, but they're not exactly acting showcases. Anywhere else I saw him, he struck me as a kind of Affleck Lite; largely devoid of any particular talent or presence. Then bam, here comes "Informant", Damon turns in one of the funniest and most idiosyncratic performances in recent memory. And he couldn't have set it in a better film. The style only enhances the comedy; it's shot and scored like a 70s TV movie. The direction is great as well; the pacing is half of the film's success. Soderbergh has a gift for slick and entertaining (see the "Ocean's" flicks) and it's put to excellent use here.
3. Drag Me to Hell
As a hardcore "Evil Dead" fan, I was very excited when I heard about this. After the bloated fuck-up that was "Spider-Man 3", going back to basics was exactly what Raimi needed - it's cheap and it plays to his strengths. It's funny, really: two of the biggest Hollywood directors of the 2000s, Sam Raimi and Peter Jackson, both started out doing low-budget, ultra-gory horror-comedies. With "Drag Me To Hell", you'd hardly believe Raimi ever left. It's thrills and chills all the way, as disgusting and hilarious as his best. The cast is great: Loman is the classic Raimi protagonist - by the end you're rooting more for the other guys - and Lorna Raver is suitably repulsive. Good to see you haven't lost it, Sam...now get on "Evil Dead 4"!
Sluncho says: I love Sam Raimi, I really do. But then he fell into the mainstream crowd, and since nothing has ever been the same. The first two Spider Man films, no denying, were pretty great. They were visual feasts with pretty solid casting and good writing, superhero flicks that even people who didn't read comics could get into. Then along came a little monster called Spider Man 3 and everything went sour. It was overlong, had schizophrenic tone, too many characters and was just all around unpleasant and boring. I was terrified Raimi had finally lost it, but then he took a break from the tights and web-swinging and this little baby got announced. I was pretty skeptical, Raimi hadn't really been in classic Raimi-mode since Darkman, so I had no idea if this'd be his infamous style of quirky horror/comedy or just some generic loud music and special effects chiller (his production company, Ghost House, sure has made plenty of those crap flicks). Fortunately, Raimi delivered and everyone was happy.
4. Zombieland
Post-Shaun of the Dead, zombies (pardon the pun) rose from the grave after what seemed like eons of stagnation. George Romero himself returned to the medium (with mixed results), Zack Snyder cut his teeth on a high-tech remake of Romero's Dawn of the Dead and countless low-rent homages/rip-offs/psuedosequels to the genre's classics, but there hasn't been anything truly unique and exciting. It all plays off the same tropes and falls for the same things that stick zombie flicks in the lower echelon of horror flicks. Zombieland, I can say with much pride and excitement, rises above these limits to present an ersatz zombie road trip adventure where there's minimal dread and maximum badassery.
The protagonists, much like the audience, aren't afraid of the zombies so much as thrilled to have the opportunity to go on a cross-country murder spree. The dread in the film comes not from the shambling ex-humans themselves, so much as the roadblock they present. The huge proliferation of zombies makes traveling around the United States quite difficult, leaving everyone stranded from their families and trying desperately to make their way home through mountains of the undead. The light-hearted tone of the film and the visual styling reminds one of a videogame, but unlike other videogame-y flicks this doesn't feel awkward and inappropriate (hell, as a big fan of Valve's wonderful Left 4 Dead series, I have to say the videogame elements added to the experience for me). Mad props forever to Woody Harrelson for cranking up the ass-kicking without losing his natural charm and Jesse Eisenberg for rising above his usual Michael Cera lite material to be both nebbishly charming and hilarious.
JB says: The horror-comedy is making a comeback, it appears. And man, am I ever glad to see it again. Look back at the 80s, when they were big; classics like "Evil Dead" and "An American Werewolf In London". The new generation, the aforementioned "Drag Me To Hell" and this, are off to a good start. Although perhaps I misclassify a bit; "Zombieland" is more an action-comedy with zombies than a true horror-comedy. Fuck classifications, though - it's a great flick. Woody Harrelson is back and firing on all four cylinders. Really, his performance alone would've made the movie. But top of that, sharp writing, tight pacing, and great zombie kills. It's got a little something for everyone - gore, laughs, even a bit of romance on the side; the popcorn flick at its pinnacle.
5. The Hurt Locker
Not only is "Hurt Locker" one of the best films of the year, I dare say it's one of the best war films of all time. Director Kathryn Bigelow has crafted a true masterpiece. “Hurt Locker” follows a three-man bomb squad in Baghdad over the course of the last seven missions of their rotation. The film is very economic in its narrative - no backstory, minimal exposition, no grand arc to story or character - it feels almost like raw documentary footage. Bigelow’s action chops (check yr history: she did "Point Break" and underrated gem "Strange Days") are put to full use here - from the breathtaking opening scene, it comes at you hard and fast and doesn't let up for a second. Not to say it's all explosions; she’s also a master of dynamics, knowing when to pull back and let the tension build. The film is absolutely riveting from beginning to end. Perhaps most amazing is that the action is never at the expense of the characters - if anything, our time in the battlezone makes us feel closer to them. This is, of course, also to the credit of the actors. All three stars (Anthony Mackie, Brian Geraghty and Jeremy Renner) are excellent, but Renner in particular is an absolute tour-de-force. He plays the big picture, you could say; by the end of the film we feel we know the character better than the film has shown us. Tremendous props must also go to cinematographer Barry Ackroyd and editors Chris Innis and Bob Murawski; they make viewer feel as though they're right in the battlefield with handheld camera, multiple angles, jumpy camera action, and quick, jerky cutting. It sounds obnoxious and disorienting, but in practice it’s not only viscerally thrilling, it’s remarkably clear; the viewer never feels lost or out-of-sync. What makes "Hurt Locker" truly a great war film, however, is the simple fact that it is a true war film. Few war films have been bold enough to cut through the politics and skip the ethics like this. “Hurt Locker” won’t date, because though set in a current war, it speaks of something universal and timeless. “Hurt Locker” is not about the war in Iraq; it’s about war itself and the men who fight it.
[Sluncho did not see, hence no comment.]
6. Public Enemies 
With an all-star cast like this and a critically lauded director like Michael Mann at the helm, it's really hard to believe that people didn't really dig this flick. It plays fast and loose with history, leaves out some important stuff, and fills the gaps with gooey mounds of stylization, but it manages to be a fairly factual and thrilling take on the life of one of the most famous criminals of all time. Johnny Depp initially seems a wee bit too pretty-boy for the role of John Dillinger, but he does justice to the role with his excellent voice and mannerisms, Depp has proven many times he is a hell of a capable actor for period roles (his general method is quite unlike most modern actors in the first place, so this is no grand surprise). The real surprises in the acting department come from Christian Bale (who rebounds from his disappointing work in the otherwise great Dark Knight with one hell of a convincing Southern accent and a stare that could pierce through solid steel) and Billy Crudup as spot-on J. Edgar Hoover (easily one of the most satisfying supporting performances of the decade). Marion Cotillard rounds out the central cast as Dillinger's beau and she makes for a strong romantic lead although she is a bit underutilized.
Visually, the film is rather anachronistic with Mann's use of digital cameras to capture the frantic prison escape and gunfight scenes, but it does no disservice to the picture. The set design and costuming are pitch-perfect, and even the actors' body language and vocabulary feel very 1930s. Of course, the flick isn't all sunshine and rainbows. The pacing has some issues that can really make the last act of the film unpleasant, the score is overbearing at points and altogether nothing memorable and some of the fact-fudging is really ludicrous (particular having other gang members die long before Dillinger, that's just inexcusably lazy). Despite the flick's issues, it's a looker and very well acted, so definitely worth a look for crime flick enthusiasts.
JB says: Everybody loves a "meaningful" film - stuff like "American Beauty". Actors are adored and appreciated by critics and the public alike. The more technical aspects of film, however, are too often dismissed - does anybody care about the best editing Oscar? "Public Enemies" is a fairly flawed film, to be sure; score is heavy-handed and messy, it's a bit too long and occasionally drags, history is smudged (if that's an issue for you). With an eye towards the technical end, though, it's a joy to watch. The action sequences, for example, are some of the best in recent memory; sharply paced, excellently filmed - keep you on the edge of your seat. The opening prison break scene in particular is a knockout; shot fast and tight, and the complete absence of score makes later uses seem all the more jarring and unnecessary. The final shootouts are great too, in no small part thanks to the incredibly cinematic tommy-guns (noisy, big-ass muzzle flash). The digital filming, which I was very nervous about going in, turned out to be one of the film's greatest assets - its sharp picture and dynamic color give us many stunning shots. Even the hyperactive in-the-action camera, an often tired and distracting technique, is used with tact here so that it packs the kind of punch it should. Also, while the original score doesn't work, Otis Taylor's gritty blues "Ten Million Slaves", used in several scenes as well as the trailers, is a perfect fit. Performances are all-around great, as would be expected from the star cast. I second Sluncho, though: special praise must go to Billy Crudup, with his perfect 30s voice. It'd be hard to call "Public Enemies" great art. Hell, even "great entertainment" would be a stretch. Its technical grace, however, was scarcely matched this year. It's not a movie to watch and re-watch carefully and thoughtfully, or mull over long after you leave the theatre, but it's a movie that will have you riveted to your seat while you watch it.
7. Crank 2: High Voltage
The original Crank was a highly entertaining but overall unspectacular action film that assaulted its audience with breakneck pacing and ludicrous action. For the sequel, the excesses of the first film are cranked (I swear to God that wasn't intentional) to the point of sheer insanity. Like the bastard child of 80s action, avant-garde cinema and a Youtube Poop, directors Mark Neveldine and Brian Taylor have constructed a 96 minute blitzkrieg on the audience which ended with all but myself, JB and another friend angrily storming out during the screening. This is a movie that wants to fuck with you, it's got plot twists around literally every corner, an ever-evolving sense of surrealistic slapstick (from a massive amount of flashy onscreen text, to kaiju and talk show homage cutaway sequences) and an ending wherein the protagonist literally extends the middle finger to the crowd. For a studio-funded action movie, High Voltage has some serious balls.
Scored by the similarly off-the-wall Mike Patton (yes, the same Mike Patton behind Fantomas and other insane music projects), the movie is a loud and fast piece of decadent foolishness that occasionally slows down for some exposition so the audience isn't entirely lost (some nonsense about a literally stolen heart, tangled webs of dead brothers and vengeance plots and David Carradine as this Triad gang leader called Poon Dong who is in possession of the previously mentioned plundered blood-pumper) and the cast is broad enough to have audience appeal (although no doubt many people were as baffled as the crowd at our showing were when they saw the finished product). Jason Statham is a solid action hero with some big hits to his name, but his work as Chev Chelios in the Crank flicks is what earns him my love. More than any other character in the film, it rests on Chev's shoulders to take the ludicrous goings-on completely seriously. Statham beats the shit out of a bunch of doctors just after receiving an artificial heart transplant, sticks jumper cables on his nipples, has graphic sex in the middle of a racetrack, beats a man to death while on fire and dresses up in a big rubber suit to beat up a similarly rubber-suited gangster Godzilla-style in an oversized power plant, all with the cold seriousness of a real professional hitman. The self-parody and genre deconstruction here is stunning for a mainstream Hollywood film, and the open-ended conclusion gives hope for a third (and possibly even more bizarre) entry in this wonderfully fucked-up franchise.
JB says: You know how sometimes you see in foreign countries (Japan, usually), they'll take an American trope (the action movie, say) and try to repackage it for their own culture? And how they try to put their own stamp on it while still keeping the quintessential "Americanness" of it? You usually end up with stuff like this, or this, or this. "Crank 2" feels like one of those things. It's an assault on everything: good taste, your senses, even itself. It's a movie for a caricature of the MTV generation. May there be many more "Crank"s to come.
8. Adventureland
It's a real tragedy what happened with "Adventureland"; it was an excellent movie that was dead fucked from the start. Director Greg Mottola must've thrown every ounce of cred from his last flick, "Superbad", into getting this made, and even then, it seems like it'd have to be a fluke. This is not the kind of movie major studios go for. It's a low-key, character-driven comedy/drama set in the 80s. Really, it could even be argued this really wasn't suited to wide release at all, but certainly not with the marketing it got. It's totally understandable why they did it the way they did, but it doomed the film, and god knows it was up against pretty tough odds already. People went in expecting "Superbad 2", and got nearly a straight drama, with a few (mostly minor) comic accents. It just went completely over their heads. At our screening, for example, Sluncho and I were the only ones laughing, and the only ones who didn't storm out as soon as the credits hit. Ultimately, the movie itself seems to have been the biggest casualty (neither Mottola nor the cast seem to have lost any steam due to it)...and what a casualty. "Adventureland" is refreshing. Mottola never dumbs it down; he avoids heavy-handed or trite plot gestures, the characters are portrayed frankly but compassionately and never played up for effect. The emotions, likewise, are understated but honest. The cast all do perfect justice to the material, too - Eisenberg strikes just the right balance between likeable and pitiful, Stewart brings great sympathy to a damaged, difficult character. Martin Starr, as overeducated outcast Joel, is perhaps the standout - at once dryly funny and somewhat tragic. Even Ryan Reynolds nails his role. And as for the soundtrack, "Adventureland" almost deserves a post of its own here; great songs put to perfect use. Replacements, Big Star, Husker Du...I can't emphasize what a miracle it was that Miramax produced this. The opening, with The Replacements' anthem "Bastards Of Young", is right up there with my favorite movie/music moments. Really, the film's only major flaw is that tacked-on Hollywood ending. Funny for Mottola to blow it there; "Superbad"'s remarkably subtle ending was one of its high points.
Sluncho says: Love it or loathe it, Judd Apatow and his crew of chums are the new kings of comedy. Of Apatow's buddies, Mottola has proven himself to be most worthy of this cred. His last flick, 2007's Superbad, rose above teen film cliches to be both hilarious and insightful with wonderful characters, a charming visual style and great writing. Sadly, this brilliant flick also kinda damned Adventureland. Since the day it was announced, the film was pretty much marketed as "Superbad 2" with all the advertising playing up Mottola's previous effort and the involvement of Superbad star Bill Hader. When the flick hit, it was pretty much a catastrophic failure with audiences. While it is a funny film, Adventureland is a hell of a lot more talky, dark and dramatic than Superbad. The jokes are largely subtle and understated, and the romantic elements make up the bulk of the plot. For JB and I, this was a refreshing surprise. We were fans of Superbad, but this flick ended up wowing us with how surprisingly mature it was in comparison. Jesse Eisenberg (like in the also great Zombieland) manages to actually do a bit more then stand in for Michael Cera's Superbad character here, and even the wackier elements of the film like the scenery-chewing, baseball bat-wielding Hader work within the more serious atmosphere without feeling like audience pandering.
The real big surprise here is Ryan Reynolds (who also wowed us in the otherwise shite X-Men Origins: Wolverine) shows he is more than just a pretty face to bring in the ladies by playing a loathsome bastard of a character who provides some of the flick's most successful drama and comedy. Hell, my only complaint about the movie is after being brilliant for about 100 solid minutes, the film implodes with a dreadful ending wherein everything our protagonist has learned goes out the window in favour of a pathetic shot at brightening up the film's mood. That misstep aside, Adventureland is one of the smartest comedy/dramas I have seen ever, and is definitely a real standout of the Apatow crew's efforts. It also deserves points for its brilliant soundtrack.
9. Coraline
As an animation fan, the past few years at the theatre have pretty much wall to wall disappointment. The last cartoon to make its way to the cinema I can say I thought was brilliant was Pixar's The Incredibles, but I just realized that was a staggering five years ago. Aside from Up (which I have yet to see but hear is great), there wasn't a single animated flick hitting this year I wanted to see (sorry, Miyazaki fans, but Ponyo just looked like yet another boring retread with a Hollywood cast). My family wanted to check this flick, though, and instead of being an anti-social stick in the mud, I decided to tag along. The new Real-D technology works better than conventional 3-D, and in the film it is used to stunning effect. Instead of just having everything sort of pop off the screen, director Henry Selick (of Nightmare Before Christmas fame) strategically has objects launch into the audience's view, making for some nice jump moments. The voicework is spectacular for a Hollywood production, with Dakota Fanning of all people (I never got all the praise lavished on her, it seemed rather unwarranted) providing a nuanced performance with both apt dramatics and solid comedic timing. John Hodgman and Ian McShane also delight as usual.
[JB did not see, hence no comment.]
10. G.I. Joe: The Rise Of Cobra
Now I know this sounds crazy, but believe me when I say G.I. Joe is one of the most enjoyable pieces of pure cornball fun made in the past decade. While the Transformers franchise has quickly bloated into a series of overlong, moronic trainwrecks, the arguably more insipid G.I. Joe universe has somehow made the transition to the big screen without losing too much of its original charm to totally alienate fans (like myself) and by gaining enough mass audience appeal to hook in people who don't give a fuck about toys and Cobra Commander. JB and I (as is the case with nearly every film selected here) hit this up at out local cinema, expecting at best ironic amusement as fans of the cartoon and at worst some sort of masochistic pleasure at how awful it'd all be, and after a mixed first 15 minutes, the movie kicked into overdrive and from there till the credits there wasn't a wasted second. The surprisingly stacked cast of legitimately good actors is largely in fine form here, with particular commendation going to Marlon Wayans for easily his best role since Requiem for a Dream (sounds absurd, I know), Christopher Eccleston for turning Destro into a scenery-chewing badass with a delightful accent and Ray Park for giving a fantastic wordless performance where his impressive stunts feel like more than just a gimmick. Plot-wise the writers play fast and loose with established Joe mythos, but plot is ultimately irrelevant to the passion play going on. You don't really care what the end goal is, just that Cobra starts some shit and then the Joes charge in to save the day as badassly as possible. The big chase scene in downtown Paris is one of the best filmed and choreographed action sequences we've both seen in a long, long time and was worth the price of admission alone.
JB says: Seldom do I agree with the "critics hate fun" plea, but I have to second director Stephen Sommers in this case: "G.I. Joe" is one of the best action films in years. Make no mistake, it's exactly what you'd expect from a movie based on a line of toys, but I mean that in the best way possible. It's like a kid playing with their Joes, if that kid had voodoo action figures and a CGI imagination. When walked out of the theater after "Joe", we geeked out about it for about an hour. Such is the power of "Joe"; it can make a couple of film snobs feel like kids again.
Bronson 
I'll admit right off the bat that this movie underwhelmed me. The pre-release hype and film festival reviews painted a hell of an exciting picture. "A Clockwork Orange for the 21st century" was the phrase most bandied about. I saw Bronson, and in a few ways I liked it, but it's not even one iota of the Kubrickian masterpiece it is claimed to be. Tom Hardy plays the film's titular character, a larger-than-life portrayal of real life crook Michael "Charlie Bronson" Peterson, a British robber who's become more famous for the crimes he's committed inside prison than the crime that got him there in the first place. The real "Bronson" has a reputation among Britons as sort of a crazy, but lovable old uncle. He has a history of violent incidents, but as is often said "he never killed anyone" and he displays a sense of tongue-in-cheek humour about himself and his actions. Whether he is sane or not remains to be seen (he did spend some time in a mental hospital, but as portrayed in the film he ended up taking it over and staging a televised rooftop protest that cost taxpayers millions of pounds), but in the movieverse, Charlie Bronson is barking mad. The movie's stylization is its best friend and worst enemy, because of its audio/visual excesses, the movie manages to work as a surreal black comedy but utterly fail as both a character study and an analysis of violence and mental health. Bronson isn't a film with anything meaningful to say about our dear ol' felon, it's just there for you to either laugh at him or cheer him on, but something tells me that's exactly what Charlie would want.
JB says: For once, I must disagree with Sluncho here. "Bronson" simply did nothing for me. Hardy was great, sure, but the film runs for too long on too little. Bronson is crazy - that's pretty much the entire movie. And to make matters worse, I found the visual style (distinctly British) obnoxious and ugly, a crime I can almost never look past in film.
2012 
I'm probably throwing all my film geek cred in the garbage here, but it must be said. 2012 is a fucking thrillride. It's a big, dumb special effects vehicle, but that's exactly what it intends to be and that's what it succeeds at. Much like the similarly surprising brilliance of G.I. Joe, 2012 works because it is so unpretentious about what it is. Roland Emmerich is no fool, he knows full well all people want is shitloads of stuff blowing up, so that's what he gives us here. The CGI work here is unparalleled in terms of quality, some of the mass destruction scenes are almost frightening in their attention to detail. People are crushed by falling cars, windows on distant building shatter, explosions go off miles away and the flames spread all the way to the foreground. The shots of Los Angeles crumbling apart into the sea are alternately horrific and hilariously awesome. Acting, as expected, isn't shit to write home about. Woody Harrelson plays a crazy guy, Danny Glover plays Danny Glover playing the President, John Cusack is a milquetoast with no charisma, there's even a weaksauce Schwarzenegger impersonator, but none of that matters. The real stars of 2012 are the impressive computer graphics, and if you go into the film expecting to just see things explode and often, you're not going to be disappointed.
JB says: What he said. It's an absolute fucking spectacle and nothing more. I'm a bit of an elitist myself, and I say if any man needs more than President Danny Glover and the very earth going up like a game of "Perfection", he's beyond help.
Funny People
As much as I'm sure a million others have beaten me to the punch on this one, the tragic flaw of Funny People is that it just isn't funny. Adam Sandler proves once again he is a much more capable dramatic actor than he is a comedian these days, his turn as George Simmons can turn on a dime from lovable to hateable without feeling disingenuous and he even gets in a few zingers harkening back to the glory days of Happy Gilmore and his brilliant comedy albums. The always hilarious Seth Rogen, on the other hand, falls flat on his face thanks to the muddled script. When he's doing standup bits or hanging out with his wacky roommates (a surprisingly fantastic Jonah Hill and a sickeningly smug Jason Schwartzman), his performance as George Simmons' biggest fan/best friend/indentured servant Ira Wright is a blast. But once the tears start flowing and Sandler gets fierce, Rogen is still in a mood too close to his usual "lovable, shouting idiot" character to be taken seriously and his character easily gets the most flat and uninteresting of the serious lines.
The jump to dramatics in general does a major disservice to the film, because it makes the amusing opening act feel less entertaining and by the time the film gets back on the right track it is very nearly over. I left the theatre bored and sort of annoyed, and by the next day I'd forgotten pretty much everything about the film, even the parts I liked. The film is unmemorable, overlong and only moderately amusing. I have yet to see the director's cut that recently hit DVD, but unless it also trims some fat on top of also adding new material, then I doubt I'll like it more than I did the theatrical version.
JB says: "Funny People" is Apatow's "look ma, I really made it" movie. After a string of blockbusters, he finally has the money and freedom to make a personal movie, and he doesn't want you to forget it for a second. Celebrity cameos galore, his family in starring roles, an ambitious blend of comedy and drama, the near 2 1/2 hour runtime; everything about it reeks of cinematic nouveau riche. The really sad part of it all is that somewhere in there, there's probably a great movie - it's just bloated. When it goes for straight comedy, it works; the standup bits are great. Even its drama has potential, as the characters are well-written. None of it holds up under the weight of its ambitions, though - which all come crashing down around the middle. On the upside, there are some great performances in there; though neither Rogen and Sandler are at their best, the supporting cast knocks it out of the park. As a million critics noted, Jonah Hill steals every scene he's in. Eric Bana is brilliant in his cranked-to-11 turn as the husband of Simmons's ex. Special note must go to newcomer Aubrey Plaza who shines even in her fairly brief role as Rogen's girlfriend. Like Sluncho, I'll give the DVD a look, but mainly for the extras; a ton of extra stand-up footage.
Ghost in the Shell 2.0
Goddammit, Oshii, what have you done? Having picked the worst possible film in his catalogue to give the George Lucas treatment, ol' Mamoru decides to jump back to his 1995 classic and muck it up with re-writes, a new cast member and some godawful CGI. Though the core of the film is unchanged in terms of plotting, the aesthetics of the film are rebuilt from the ground up. In its current state, the film more resembles a carbon-copy of Oshii's brilliant 2004 flick Innocence than Ghost in the Shell. The green Tandy computers monitors and vibrant penwork of the original film have fallen to the wayside for a festival of clunky 3D models, orange filters and persistent colour muting that looks like you're viewing the film from inside a shoebox at the bottom of a pit. The enhanced visual darkness detracts from the attention to minor details that draws animation enthusiasts back to the classics of 90s anime, nods to brand-name clothing and the subtle physical tics of characters are obscured because you can't see fucking anything and the addition of a few full CGI re-imaginings of classic scenes from the film take all the life out of Oshii's world-famous directorial style by replacing swift movement with awkward jerking. Thankfully untouched is animator Mitsuo Iso's career-defining climactic battle scene, but so many other great moments are ruined by this dreadful Star Warsification. The animation isn't the only thing to suffer, though.
The original sound effects (a combination of the wonderful Sunrise stock library of giant robot clanks and whirs with some punchy gunshots and explosions) are replaced with a bunch of newly recorded foley mixed by Oscar-winning Randy Thom, while the new sounds are good, they lack the distinct Eastern charm of the original mix and instead sound much too similar to every other futuristic action film you've ever seen. The music suffers a much worse fate, as Kenji Kawai's score is given a great remix but stripped down from ten songs to about three or four. The repetition of the same tracks during scenes that had very different music kills the mood, one can only hear the same booming choir so many times (Innocence, also scored by Kawai, suffered from a similar problem by having one song repeated in its entirety three goddamn times in the film). In the acting department, all the major players have returned but Iemasa Kayumi, who is replaced (bizarrely) by Yoshiko Sakakibara as the Puppet Master. Sakakibara is a wonderful voice actress, but her casting as a male character depicted in a female body cheapens the surprise of the big reveal and seems a bit too straightforward while Kayumi's gravelly old man voice added to the mystery of the character. Sakakibara's voice is also a bit too close in timbre to lead Atsuko Tanaka's, which can make their big verbal showdown a bit hard to follow. Altogether the film is just a case of trying to fix what ain't broke and doing a completely awful job of it, a damn shame, really.
[JB did not see, hence no comment.]
Watchmen
Let's face it, if you've read the comics you know the end result of the film adaptation was pretty much the best movie we'd get of the story made for a close to sane budget from a major studio. The movie is largely unsuccessful in living up to the comic's standards (which while high aren't quite as high as fanboys make them up to be), but it is a damn fine action flick and there are a few moments where the cast and crew nail the kind of magic Alan Moore and Dave Gibbons brought to the four-colour world in 1986. A bunch of shit was started over the film's deviation from and exclusion of some plot points, but I have to say in a lot of cases the changes made were steps in the right direction. The hardcores love it, but I found the "Tales from the Black Freighter" segments to be heavy-handed and uninteresting, and I cannot imagine them logically fitting into a motion picture of any sort. The ending change also is a beneficial one, since despite how stunning the art in the opening pages of the final issue is, the fact the destruction of New York is caused by a bio-engineered psychic squid is so ludicrously comic book-y would make the scene pretty tough to take seriously on-screen. A few alterations are unwelcome, though.
Director Zack Snyder (who previously turned Frank Miller's tepid 300 into a gorgeous but idiotic slashfest) tries too hard to actionify the story, having the diminutive and scrappy Rorschach fight off police trying to arrest him with a kickboxing meets Adam West Batman routine that never occurred in the comic and similarly goes all out with Rorschach's prison escape by having Silk Spectre and Nite Owl fight like Matrix rejects but in even slower motion. Aside from that, Snyder plays it commendably straight (much straighter than comic geeks claim, but less than the critics who foolishly see it as brilliant think) and the aesthetics of the film (aside from the aforementioned slow-mo) are impeccable.
The CGI Dr. Manhattan isn't exactly lifelike but emotes very well and suits Billy Crudup's fantastic vocal performance, and with a few exceptions the costuming is faithful to the comics and stylish. Music is also surprisingly well selected, with a period soundtrack focusing quite heavily on pop music (right down to "99 Luftballons", of all things). Not every selection is successful, though. One particularly overblown scene is set to a cacophonous and generally downright terrible recording of Leonard Cohen's "Hallelujah" and the My Chemical Romance cover of "Desolation Row" that blares over the credits is utterly wretched. Tyler Bates' score (largely incomplete, allegedly) is similarly a huge miss, never really enhancing the action any and leaving the viewer wishing the film was soundtracked entirely by music of the era (or better yet, more Philip Glass, since two of his pieces provide backing for the most emotionally resonant segment of the film.
In terms of the cast, Jackie Earle Haley does much justice to Rorschach in terms of body language and vocal performance, but a combination of sloppy writing and directing misrepresents Rorschach as the bastard son of Batman and the Punisher instead of the mentally ill riff on Ayn Rand's Objectivist philosophy that he's supposed to be, leading the audience to cheer on his mean-spirited bastardry instead of questioning his actions. Patrick Wilson whines and blubbers through the role of Daniel "Nite Owl" Dreiberg, succeeding at actually nailing the more pathetic, human elements of the character instead of suffering the same fate as Rorschach. Malin Akerman isn't anything of substance as Silk Spectre, but I'd say it's more the fault of the writers than her since a lot of her character's most significant dialogue ends up on the cutting room floor. The surprise star, at least in my books, is definitely Jeffrey Dean Morgan as The Comedian. Like in the comics, Comedian is arguably the most reprehensible character in the cast, but Morgan's charisma allows you to put up with his dastardly antics and see the sad, old man on the inside. Morgan's scenery-chewing in the flashback scenes is crowd-pleasing, but doesn't lose the nihilistic philosophy his character espoused in the comics. The movie isn't great, but it's also not a terrible trainwreck. If you're looking for a good action movie and you have enough patience for the extreme runtime, it's worth a watch, and if you enjoy comics and aren't a total stuck-up snob, you might even have a hell of a time with this.
JB says: Really, "Watchmen" shouldn't have been made. The book is vastly overrated; though a very good comic, it certainly never transcended the medium as it's been made out to. And this is perhaps key to why the movie was doomed from the start; "Watchmen" is a comic book through and through. Its structure and style are all constructed so specifically around and within the comic book format that much would be lost in translation in any film adaption. To make matters worse, its very production is a knot of Catch-22s. An independent studio, even if it were to be interested (unlikely), could never affort to translate it to film with any degree of accuracy, and if a major studio is to expend the necessary budget, it'll need box office results to break even. If it were to be made faithfully to the comic, it would be brutally uncommercial; far too long, lacking in crowd-pleaser content, ultimately only marketable to the fanboy crowd. If it were to be made marketable to mainstream audiences, the work would suffer for it. And indeed it did. Both the story and the characters were given real short shrift by a combination of oversimplification and trimming. As Sluncho mentioned, Rorscharch is perhaps the worst casualty; much of his part, including many scenes which give us key insight into his character, are cut, and he's reduced from a walking moral dilemma to a typical "gritty badass anti-hero". Silk Spectre is left as little more than a placeholder. Even Dr. Manhattan, one of the better adaptions, loses painful amounts of depth in the editing. Not only that, much of the time spared by mutilating the characters is filled with big flashy action scenes. And even after all this, it's still too long, too complex and not exciting enough for the average moviegoer. It's a tremendous irony, really; the comic that was supposed to transcend comics ended up just another comic book movie.
Inglourious Basterds
I really don't want to write a big fat blurb on this because I could probably fill a whole article with minor complaints and faint praise for this flick, so I'll cut to the chase. It's entertaining, well-cast and gorgeous, but weighed down with even more of Tarantino's smug pretension and exploitation homage bollocks than even the Kill Bill flicks. If he'd played it a bit more straight and trimmed the length a smidge, this could have easily been his best film since Pulp Fiction.
JB says: I walked into "Basterds" expecting to hate it. Looking back on it, all the things I expected to hate about it were there; over-the-top violence, cartoonish Nazi villains, etc. It was also too long, bloated by unnecessary subplots and (typically) too talky. So I can't say it was a good movie, but it certainly was an enjoyable one. And really, isn't that what Tarantino has always done? He's never made art. He makes entertainment, and at its best damn good entertainment. Sure, I know "Basterds" is schlocky and self-indulgent, but I had a great time and walked out of the theatre satisfied.
The first annual SYHAP stylish nonsense award: The Limits of Control 
Boy howdy, I loves me some Jim Jarmusch. Ol' Jimmy-boy is one of the best and most painfully underrated directors in the history of cinema. His aesthetic sense is impeccable, the way his camera moves is graceful and he uses black and white like no one else. Mr. Jarmusch has made some of my favourite films ever (Down by Law standing out as the pick of the crop), so I was pretty excited to peep this flick. In terms of sheer hypnotic beauty, I wasn't let down, but my God, it sure lived up to its reputation for absurdity. I'm no stranger to Jarmusch's brand of mundane weirdness (I honestly thought aside from the "serious" bits that Coffee and Cigarettes was an entertaining film), but this movie is a real patience-tester. The dialogue is very well delivered by the excellent cast (mad props to John Hurt for his five seconds of screentime), but it's at best whimsically goofy and at worst utterly laughable.
If you can manage to tune all the strange conversation out (it's not hard, the bulk of the film is almost entirely silent), you have one of the most gorgeous films in recent memory in front of you. Nearly every shot is something you could frame and hang on a wall, and it uses a variety of usually obnoxious techniques (slow motion, illogical jump cuts, poorly lit night shots) to amazing effect. The choice of music aids this, as the film is soundtracked with some fantastic drone from the likes of Boris, Sunn 0))) and Michio Kurihara. Unconventional music for an unconventional film, and outwardly almost as strange as the writing, but in practice it works much better than I imagine anything else would.
JB says: "Limits", when you get down to it, really is pretty much completely a matter of taste. If you find Jarmusch's previous work boring, stay away. If you have little patience for slow-paced films, stay away. If you value narrative clarity over atmosphere, stay away. If you value substance over style, stay way the hell away. My bias: I am none of the above. I knew what I was getting into and it was pretty much exactly what I expected it to be. Everything critics complained about is true. It's fucking incoherent. There is no story, the characters are characters in only the most technical sense, the dialogue is pretentious babble, the pace is so slow it's barely there, etc., etc., etc. It is, however, absolutely exquisitely styled. The music, one of the features that drew me to it in the first place, is excellent and suits perfectly. It's stunningly shot; from composition to motion to color, even the editing. Look at "Limits" like the drone-doom that soundtracks it: it's long and slow, there's no real story(melody), it may be pretentious and not really make sense. But if you're willing to look past all that and just feel it, there's much beauty to be found.
Biggest disappointment in cinema: The Men Who Stare at Goats
I usually don't get unnecessarily excited based solely on trailers, but the teaser for this flick had me anticipating it more than any other comedy this year. Inevitably, it just had to let me down. The flick is impeccably cast and has a few genuinely brilliant moments, but it's incredibly tedious and there are 10 minute to half hour blocks without a single joke and that's utterly unacceptable in a comedy film. The narrative is too messy and has too many characters to really go anywhere, and it ends on a confusing and unsatisfying note. I don't even think some editing could really save this flick, it has really deep-seated issues in scripting and would take a lot of spit and polish on the plotting to work.
If you go in without high expectations, it provides a mildly amusing diversion, but it fails to live up to the hype it got on the festival circuit and squanders its potential on meandering dialogue.
[JB did not see, hence no comment.]
Posts
All Comments
