In The Loop

IN THE LOOP (2009) - Feb. 28, 2010
A really fast-paced, sometimes hilariously profane comedy about a few mid-level politicians in the leadup to a war (with a country that is never named).  The direction is pretty bland, but the film is really all about the crackling, rapid-fire dialogue, which is often quite funny (and kind of like a funnier, more profane version of something Aaron Sorkin might do).  ***

The Crazies

THE CRAZIES (2010) - Feb. 27, 2010
A surprisingly well made film about a strange outbreak in a small town that turns people insane.  Well directed by Breck Eisner (and certainly a pretty huge step up from his debut film, Sahara) the movie wastes no time getting things into gear, and does a great job of ratcheting up the tension when it needs to and keeping up a really fast pace.  There were some pretty riveting sequences here, and all in all it was definitely an above average horror outing.  Also, Timothy Olyphant gives yet another really charismatic, compelling lead performance -- I don't get why the man isn't a bigger star (aside from his surprisingly ineffective role in Live Free or Die Hard, which I'm sure wasn't his fault).  ***1/2

Ponyo

PONYO (2008) - Feb. 26, 2010
Yet another really enjoyable, visually dazzling film from Hayao Miyazaki.  The visual style here is a bit simpler and more colourful than Miyazaki's usual fare, but it absolutely works.  ***

The Last Action Hero

THE LAST ACTION HERO (1993) - Feb. 25, 2010 (Second Viewing)
Though not exactly the underrated gem I rememebered it being, this was a decent enough film about a boy who winds up getting sucked into the world of his favourite action hero.  Though the film is a sometimes amusing send-up of Hollywood action movies, it's also an action film itself, and that's one of the main problems -- the action just isn't all that good, and it is quite plentiful.  It's over-the-top and, for the most part, not particularly exciting.  The film is also *way* overlong at over two hours, and definitely feels it.  Arnie is quite good though, not surprisingly.  **1/2

The Lovely Bones

THE LOVELY BONES (2009) - Feb. 24, 2010
A disappointing and pretty mediocre film from Peter Jackson about a young girl who is murdered, and who then observes her family from the afterlife.  The film is well made, and I was enjoying it for the first twenty minutes or so, but after a while I just found myself losing interest, and by the end I was quite bored.  The movie felt really disjointed, like a random collection of scenes -- the afterlife stuff and the family drama never quite gelled, and the movie really lacked any kind of narrative momentum.  It didn't help that the film spent an absurd amount of time with the girl just wandering around in the afterlife, and that the nature of how she was actually observing her family was never really made clear -- the movie would cut between something happening with her family and her standing in a field or something, and the implication would be that she was somehow watching her family, but how?  Was there a big TV screen in the sky?  That's a definitely a nit-pick, though.  There were some individual scenes that I liked (such as the tense scene in which the girl's sister sneeks into the killer's house), and the film was certainly well made and well acted, but overall it just didn't work.  **

Aliens

ALIENS (1986) - Feb. 23, 2010 (Second Viewing)
Thanks to his almost absurd success with Avatar, James Cameron is currently the man of the moment (and will likely be taking home another Oscar come Sunday). Say what you will about Cameron, but he has a pretty much flawless track record (the only film of his I haven’t seen is the Abyss, but I’ll just assume that it’s good). I don’t think there are any directors right now who can direct action quite as well as James Cameron, and Aliens is probably his best film.  The thing about Aliens is that it may just be the perfect sequel — it takes everything that was great about the first film and cranks it up to eleven. It also manages to be different enough so as not to be seen as a mere rehash, trading in the more slow-paced eerie suspense of the original in favour of a surfeit of riveting and exciting action sequences. The other nice thing about Aliens is that, like the original, it’s not in any rush to get to the action, and gives us time to really get to know the cast of characters, which makes the action-heavy second half all the more effective. I watched the director’s cut of this film, which is just over two and a half hours long, and the film was completely entertaining from start to finish; it absolutely never feels like it’s overstaying its welcome.  And then there’s the action, which is amazingly intense, and probably the best work that Cameron has done. A couple of highlights include the scene in which a couple of characters find themselves locked in a room with a facehugger, and the final confrontation between Ripley and the alien queen (including the incredibly bad-ass moment in which Ripley emerges in the robot suit and utters the now-classic line “get away from her, you bitch!”). Good stuff.  If I were to compose a list of my favourite action films, Aliens would definitely be right near the top (if not on top). It’s that good.  ****

Hatchet

HATCHET (2006) - Feb. 22, 2010
Boy, what a let-down!  Jeez.  The first film from Adam Green, the director of the far, far, far, far (far far far far) superior Frozen, this was a surprisingly mediocre film about a tour group who wind up getting stalked by a hulking maniac in the swamps of New Orleans.  Visually bland almost to the extreme, I don't think there was a single aspect of this film that didn't feel ultra-low rent (other than the over-the-top gore effects, which is clearly where most of the budget went).  This was a horror "comedy," though the jokes were uniformly lame.  There was no tension or suspense whatsoever (not that they even seemed to be going for that).  Oh man.  The visuals were just so bland, I can't believe it.  Especially after Frozen.  It was like TV movie visuals.  I was so sure it was shot digitally, just because of how flat and low-rent the cinematography was -- I was stunned to see in the credits that it was actually shot on 35mm film.  It just goes to show you that shooting on film isn't some sort of magic solution to make your movie look good, you still need some talent behind the camera (which Green seemed to have in spades based on Frozen, but which is now seriously in doubt).  I have no idea how this has become a cult hit.  I can only assume the over-the-top (and admittedly impressive) gore had a lot to do with it, because this is otherwise an exceptionally mediocre film.  *1/2

Bolt

BOLT (2008) - Feb. 21, 2010
An enjoyable cartoon about a dog who thinks that the TV show he stars in is real, and who must travel across the country when he is accidently shipped from LA to New York.  Like pretty much every other non-Pixar computer-animated film from the studios, this is quite enjoyable but not much more.  ***

Avatar

AVATAR (2009) - Feb. 21, 2010 (Second Viewing)
Yep, I don't like 3D.  This is supposedly the pinnacle of 3D technology, and while this is probably the best implementation that I've seen for 3D thus far, that's really not saying much.  The technology still feels inherently gimmicky to me, and just serves to constantly remind you that you're watching a film, making any real immersion in the story much more difficult.  Plus, I don't think the technology is quite there yet, particularly for the live action stuff -- the 3D technology tends to make everything seem more flat, which is pretty much the opposite of what its supposed to do.  That said, in any format this film is still a masterful piece of popcorn entertainment  ****

Alien

ALIEN (1979) - Feb. 20, 2010
I have mixed feelings on Ridley Scott — on one hand, he made films like this and Blade Runner, which is easily one of my favourite films of all time. On the other hand, the quality of his output has been erratic of late, putting it kindly. But no matter how many mediocre films the man makes, there will always be a place for him among the greats if only for making a film as assured and downright perfect as this one.  I’ve seen this movie a couple of times before, and I remembered it being really good, but wow — this is an absolute classic, and definitely one of the most effective films of its type. For one thing, Ridley Scott’s direction is absolutely perfect (it’s hard to believe that this is directed by the same man who recently made the mediocre and dull American Gangster). I love the pacing of this movie — yes, it’s slow by contemporary standards; the alien doesn’t pop out of John Hurt’s chest until about the 56 minute mark, and we don’t actually see the full-grown alien until well after an hour has passed. But the slower pace helps to establish the kind of tension and dread that otherwise wouldn’t have been possible, and ensures that the audience is familiar with the characters and the layout of the ship. This is a remarkably tense, suspenseful film.  Scott also makes the wise choice to never really give us a good look at the alien, which just makes it creepier (despite the fact that after several sequels, spin-offs, comic books and video games, modern audiences obviously have a pretty good idea of what the alien looks like). I also really like the design of this movie — from the ship where most of the action takes place, to the ruined alien ship, to the alien itself, this is a really visually compelling film. Derek Vanlint’s dark cinematography is also quite stunning (and oddly, at least according to the imdb, the man only has a handful of credits to his name).  Hmmm, what next on the laundry list of superlatives? The performances are really good. Sigourney Weaver is obviously pretty much perfect as a more vulnerable Ripley (at least compared to the grizzled alien ass-kicker she became in the sequels). The other performances are just as good. Also, the special effects have aged remarkably well.  This is one of those rare movies that accomplishes nearly everything it sets out to do with perfection. It’s a classic, no doubt about it.  ****

Shutter Island

SHUTTER ISLAND (2010) - Feb. 19, 2010
About a couple of cops who go to a sinister island-bound asylum to investigate the mystery of a missing girl, this was a really entertaining thriller.  Stylishly directed by Martin Scorsese, this slowed down a bit in a couple of spots, but was otherwise a really engaging, well made thriller.  ***1/2

Valentine's Day

VALENTINE'S DAY (2010) - Feb. 19, 2010
Oh, the humanity.  About a bunch of characters in L.A. on Valentine's Day, this was a surprisingly awful film.  It started out decently enough -- it was pretty much just a compendium of hoary romcom cliches from minute one, but it was basically entertaining for a while (the novelty of seeing a familiar face in pretty much every role helped).  But after a while the hackiness of it got more and more grating, and the familiarity of the whole thing meant that there wasn't a single surprise, or even a single moment that I hadn't seen many, many times before.  It was boring, and by the end of the film I was very ready for it to be over.  Just imagine every bad romantic comedy that you've ever seen crammed into one intolerable film, and you have this movie in a nutshell.  *

Body Parts

BODY PARTS (1991) - Feb. 18, 2010
A silly but mostly enjoyable thriller about a man who has an arm transplant after a car crash, only to find that his new arm came from a vicious killer and that the killer's thoughts seem to be seeping into his brain.  The film is a bit more slow-paced than it needs to be, and contains a third act that is quite ridiculous, even given the already absurd premise of the film -- but for what it is the film pretty much works.  **1/2

The Wolfman

THE WOLFMAN (2010) - Feb. 14, 2010
A surprisingly dull movie about an actor in 19th century England who returns home when his brother disappears under mysterious circumstances, only to find his brother dead and a strange creature on the loose.  Did I mention how dull it is?  I'm normally a pretty big fan of Benicio Del Toro, but his performance here was lifeless and just not interesting at all (which is generally the last thing you'd say about a Benicio performance).  The movie itself is way, way too slow-paced to be the fun escapism a monster movie like this should be, and way too bland and generic to suceed as any kind of character study or serious drama, so it's pretty much a complete fiasco.  There is, however, one really good sequence that finds Del Toro's character transforming into the wolfman in front of a group of horrified onlookers, and then rampaging through the streets of London.  This was easily the best part -- if the film had been peppered with more sequences like this, it would have been much more tolerable.  Oh, I should also mention the ending, which was bizarre and unintentionally comical.  *1/2

All That Heaven Allows

ALL THAT HEAVEN ALLOWS (1955) - Feb. 12, 2010
I enjoyed this movie. This was my first Douglas Sirk film, and of course, Sirk is well known his stylized, vibrant colour palette — even knowing that, I was still unprepared for just how lush the visuals were. The film is almost absurdly colourful. It’s quite striking, and it’s easy enough to see why Sirk has been so influential over the years. Most notably, Sirk’s influence on Pedro Almodovar seems fairly apparent, both in his vibrant use of colour and the emphasis on larger-than-life melodrama.  Yes, this film is quite melodramatic — another Sirk hallmark. Melodrama can be painful to watch when done wrong, but Sirk obviously knew what he was doing. The characters and plot developments are far from subtle, but it all really works. I liked it; list, you’ve done it again! Actually, the list has been pretty good to me so far — out of the 13 films that I’ve watched, there have only been two overt duds. If the good to bad movie ratio can stay at about that level, I’ll be very happy indeed.  ***

Airplane!

AIRPLANE! (1980) - Feb. 8, 2010
I’ve been a fan of this movie for a while, though it’s been a few years since I’ve seen it — I was a bit afraid that it wouldn’t be as good (and as funny) as I had remembered it being. This is, after all, a movie that is regularly called one of the funniest films of all time. It’s easy to go into a movie like this, one that you remember loving but haven’t seen in a while, with overly-heightened expectations.  So, was it as funny as I remembered? Nope. Funnier. This is indeed a classic in the genre, and features a frantic, joke-a-minute pace that is often imitated but never duplicated. For the first ten minutes or so you’re basically wondering how long they can keep up the constant stream of legitimately funny gags, but it never lets up. The film has an oddball, anything-for-a-laugh mentality that could be disastrous if done wrong, but it absolutely works. In that way I’m almost not sure what to think of this movie — it is undoubtedly pretty great, and yet it has spawned so many like-minded, yet woefully inept imitators. Pretty much every crappy “______ Movie” spoof film probably wouldn’t exist if it weren’t for this movie (well, this and some of Mel Brooks’ films from the ’70s). But it’s hard to fault a film for being so good that it essentially spawns its own comedy sub-genre, even if that sub-genre is almost uniformly terrible.  I don’t have much else to say about this film, other than that it’s hilarious and you should watch it. And if you haven’t seen it in a while, watch it again.  ***1/2

From Paris With Love

FROM PARIS WITH LOVE (2010) - Feb. 6, 2010
Though definitely the weakest of Pierre Morel's films, this was still a basically enjoyable action film about an uptight rookie secret agent teamed up with a loose-cannon veteran.  The main problem here was that neither of the two main characters were particularly compelling, which made it hard to care too much about them.  However the action was plentiful and decent enough, though it was a bit too heavy on the old quick-cut/shaky-cam.  The whole thing was a bit of a let-down considering the general awesomeness of Morel's last two films.  **1/2

L'Avventura

L'AVVENTURA (1960) - Feb. 6, 2010 (Second Viewing)
I think it probably goes without saying at this point that L’Avventura does not make Speed  look like a slow ride to grandma’s house. I’d probably even go so far as to describe it as boring, though I think that word is a bit too derogatory since I would ultimately recommend this film — to certain people at least. If you consider yourself to be serious about cinema at all, then you need to see this film. But if you’re the type of person who goes to the movies once or twice a year and occasionally heads to Blockbuster to rent a movie or two — yeah, you can easily go the rest of your life without watching this movie. It’s absolutely beautifully made with stunning black and white cinematography, and it is kind of compelling in its own strange way, but it isn’t entertaining in the traditional sense at all. Not even a little bit.  It’s kind of odd, because my general philosophy on cinema is that, no matter what a director is trying to say or how noble his intentions are, a film’s first purpose should be to entertain — it doesn’t matter how insightful, artfully-crafted, etc. a movie is, if it isn’t entertaining then it is almost invariably a failure. And there is no doubt that Antonioni wasn’t concerned at all with making his films enjoyable in a traditional sense. And yet I do consider myself a fan of his, and would recommend his films (though, as I mentioned before, not to everyone). It’s odd. I think watching an Antonioni film is kind of like being forced to eat vegetables as a kid — you’re not necessarily going to enjoy it, but you will be enriched by it.  ***

Frozen

FROZEN (2010) - Feb. 5, 2010
About three twenty-somethings on a skiing trip who wind up stranded on a chair lift, and who quickly realize that they're in some pretty serious trouble, this was a really well made, effective and quite suspenseful film.  It's been compared a lot to Open Water, and that's definitely apt but I liked this film even better.  It did a really good job of setting up the characters, putting them in the situation and then not over-staying its welcome.  It also does a really good job of sustaining a fairly high level of tension for pretty much the entire time.  Good stuff.  ****

The Blind Side

THE BLIND SIDE (2009) - Feb. 2, 2010
About a wealthy woman who welcomes a homeless, dim-witted but good-natured teen (who turns out to be an amazing football player) into her home, this was a well made, well acted and generally well put-together film that just wasn't all that compelling.  I was basically entertained for the first hour or so, but after a while it became clear that the movie wasn't particularly going anywhere, and was moving far slower than it really should have.  **