Inception

Summer movies have been a huge disappointment so far. Not merely in quality, but also in selection. I haven’t been eager to see any films outside of the annual Pixar voyage demanded every summer. Not so with “Inception” – a thrilling, psychological, science fiction, heist flick blend that had me glued from the first frame.

The story is this – a team of mental ninja’s (led by Leonardo DiCaprio) are commissioned to go into the minds of others and extract information. In addition to extraction is inception, a nigh impossible technique where said team of ninja’s go in and implant ideas into the mind’s of others. I don’t want to say more – the less known the better.

Let’s talk the good, firstly being the structure of the story. If you are going to introduce new rules of reality, make sure the audience gets it, and we get it. I have never seen a film like this before, but Nolan and company do an excellent job of setting up the parameters, the rules, and show us how they work in the first hour or so. The second half or more of the film is the team of mental con artists playing by the rules. In terms of genre I have a positive bias towards heist flicks, especially the “one last job” noir style tragi-drama. “Inception” is a great heist flick.

The effects and the means by which they are employed are perfect. Nolan blends the best of naturalistic effects with CGI. There are things on screen that happen that I have never imagined, and yet I was thoroughly immersed - I believed it all. Especially memorable is a hallway fight that involves a spinning room and drunken laws of gravity. Acting is uniformly convincing, but I have to give a big nod to Joseph Gordon Levitt whose athleticism, wit, and acting chops have appealed to me beyond nearly all other big screen actors.

Now the critical – the movie is so densely packed with information, that the emotional intentions get obscured. Nolan goes for big emotional buy in – marriage, death, grief, Father/Son relationships, and love all make weighty appearances. Yet, the viewer has been on alert since the first act that it might all be a dream. My attention to all of the details made me work at the film, so much so that I had a headache at the end of its 2 ½ hour running time. I praise that it made me work to be in the film, but it was hard to let myself get emotionally invested.

Psychologically speaking, the film is one big, intensive therapy session for one of the characters. We are introduced to the power of the mind, dreams, and memory interacting like a volatile chemical with feelings waiting to explode. The film almost espouses Cognitive Behavioral Psychotherapy (CBT), a popular brand of therapy which posits that when the thoughts are changed, the feelings will change as well. This brand of emotional confrontation seems to be at the center of the mind game. The characters experience a confrontation of painful truths, changed ideas, and big feelings to mix it all together.

There is much to be theorized about the film, and it certainly demands multiple viewings. However, I want to point out that it’s nice to see Nolan sit comfortably as an auteur – something of a lost brand in modern filmmaking. It would seem that he, Scorsese, Spielberg, and few others share a common creative control, touch, and feel in their films. In other words, Nolan’s films – cold and detached, yet slick and innovative – have a look and feel that are distinctly his. His creative touch is all over “Inception” with what appears to be almost no interference. With “Inception,” Nolan has managed to live up to the hype he created for himself after making “The Dark Knight,” creating even more hype and expectation for what he will make next. I can’t wait to see.

When in Rome

Mary – “Christopher, is this a good movie?”
Me – “No Mary it’s not”

Mary is my Mother in law, and she and I have vastly different tastes in entertainment in general. It’s not that I’m a snob, or that I have to watch movies in foreign languages that reference other movies in foreign languages. It’s not that the only English language films I watch have a low budget and a shaky handheld camera. It’s a bad movie because it’s what’s wrong with movies in general.

“When In Rome” is a 90 minute cringe fest. It aggressively wastes nearly all of its considerable talent with ease. With exception to Dax Shepard, who elicited the only laughs as a narcissistic male model, the movie fails on every level. Let’s start with the story, which is the same formula of every romantic comedy: Overworked girl meets someone (on vacation), starts to get into him, faces a dilemma, only to be swept off of her feet and be overjoyed by romance that ends in a wedding, which of course has an interruption before rapture sweeps the couple off of their feet.

Where “When In Rome” should have been really fun is in its real comedic talent. Will Arnett is amazing in Arrested Development, Jon Heder should have been great as a “street magician,” Danny Devito is blessed as a dark comedian, and Bobby Moynihan is great on SNL. Beyond the comedy, Anjelica Huston does her best Meryl Streep impression from “The Devil Wears Prada” and even Lee Pace from “The Fall” and “Pushing Daisies” briefly makes an appearance. Yet, they are all wasted on an awful script and poor direction. The filmmakers manage to make someone as likeable as Kristen Bell an eye rolling mess.

But it is the story and the moral ineptitude that is perhaps most bothersome. Kristen Bell is told by her newly-dating-younger-sexy-woman-Father that she just needs to “believe” in love. When Bell’s character points out the twice divorced Father’s track record doesn’t appear to support this ideal, he says something to the effect of “I just love too much.” While most of us would find it stupid, the movie seems to esteem the character and his philosophy. Isn’t that offensive to anyone besides me?

The sad truth is that this mentality is what motivates the central character. Later in the film she repeats out loud to herself the advice of her Father – to “just believe” in love. Another thing she could have said is “just believe in warm feelings that tingle your tummy.” I may be making more of a deal about this than is necessary, but this is the point: all films inevitably espouse a worldview. Whether it is preachy or subtle, it is literally impossible to make anything (especially films) that doesn’t have some kind of meaning or point.

A recent episode of “South Park” attempted to make the point that some things aren’t intended to be interpreted beyond face value. In the episode, the boys attempt to make the most offensively graphic novel in the history of mankind only to have it be interpreted as a metaphor, hailed as a work of genius. But even then, the episode makes a point that some things don’t have a point. Isn’t that a belief of some kind, or an extension of ones worldview – that not all things have a point?

So, “When In Rome” is a giant waste of time that tries to sneak in a message underneath it’s unpretentious looks. It wastes loads of comedic talent and in an attempt to make us feel any feelings of puppy love ends up grating the nerves. Don’t fall for this kind of garbage. Don’t waste your time with it. Watch Arrested Development for some Will Arnet goodness instead.

Thinking about "Shutter Island"

I’ve been catching up on movies lately, so unfortunately the bulk of my recent viewings have occurred at home, not in theaters. But hey, if you are wondering whether or not to rent, here’s my take!

In “Shutter Island,” man couple Martin Scorsese and Leonardo DiCaprio team up again to tell the humorous story of finding love where you least expect it in a foreign country.
Or not. DiCaprio and Mark Ruffalo are federal agents investigating the disappearance of a patient at Shutter Island, an intensive inpatient mental hospital that houses only the most dangerous and violent of criminals. Through the film, the two dig and dig to find the truth of what happened to their missing subject.

There are 2 things inherent in any Martin Scorsese movie, especially if it was made in the last 10 years or so – everyone on screen is going to act their best, and it’s going to look first rate. Editing, cinematography, and Scorsese’s specialty – character – are all trademark excellent. Not one frame is wasted on anything dull in spite of a running time of just over 2 hours. While Scorsese aficionados have most likened the film to his remake of “Cape Fear,” I see little similarity apart from the thriller genre aspect. This is still Scorsese, so it is first and foremost about what people feel, who they are, and why they do the things they do. It is about great characters.

Read on, but important spoilers will be revealed:

The task of creating the film had to present some difficult challenges, because once the main reality of the film is exposed, we realize that we are watching 2-3 movies at the same time. We think it’s a mystery, but there is no mystery. Ultimately, the film is grounded in two psychiatric schools of thought – to love or not to love? While one school saw lobotomy (a barbaric process in which a portion of the brain is likened to a scrambled egg) as the logical progress forward, the other school found medication in combination with genuine care and talk therapy to be the answer to treatment and care.

The film then, is the story of patient care. Consider what is actually happening – a man, so traumatized and detached by horrors in his life that he has experienced and taken part in, constructs an alternate reality where he is only a victim or observer of the trauma. This is his defense mechanism against his experiences. His alternative reality is not so far fetched. It is how many psychotic disorders develop. Consider sexual trauma, violent trauma, or other types of trauma. Rather than live in the real world – one which is too painful to actually experience – we create an experience that we can control and cope with. This is a fantastically intricate yet automatic method of protecting ourselves from pain.

The star of the film is ultimately an elaborate treatment plan that involves role play on a huge scale. Every character is role playing in order to aid in this particular clients treatment. What we watch is how one doctor conceives of treatment – that if one lives in and is enabled by their “detachment” role, they may break into reality, the process of which takes time. This is why the flashbacks happen in the film – it is the protagonist’s memories being permitted to come to life by the protagonist himself. As the real memories come through, he has to allow himself to be exposed to who he truly is, and what truly happened.

The fault of the film is in the reality of it. No matter how loving and caring one might be, no one is going to put a patient at such risk as to let him wander off near a cliff by himself, or otherwise. While the protagonist is logical and thoughtful in weaving his web regarding the mystery in the film, at any point the memories coming back may have been too much that his detached reality could have caved in. That he lives in it for several days in such consistency and logic is also intriguing. And yet, like “Lars and the Real Girl,” the fact that everyone plays along with the main character shows what might happen if we accept an alternate reality as real for someone, even if it is false in our reality. Perhaps when we realize this serves a purpose for someone else, that acceptance can lead to breakthrough.

END Spoiler

Like “The Road,” I knew I was going to love “Shutter Island” within 5 minutes of viewing it. The opening shot of the ship moving through thickened fog and the faces of all the guards on the protagonist sets the tone early. Like the ship itself, the film has a lot of fog and texture before we really see what’s coming towards us. Big thumbs up.

Oh hello, its been awhile...

I wanted to briefly post to let you know I am still here, but my schedule has swallowed me whole. After gasping for some air, here are some brief takes:

I was hoping to give a full fledged review to Tim Burton's vision of "Alice in Wonderland," but I fell asleep during the film. That may be review enough. You want more? Um, it had pretty colors.

"Date Night" was really funny and even deeper than one might expect. Its a great ride, but the strength of the film squarely depends on your feeling about its leads. The story and comedic territory will feel mostly familiar. I happen to be a big fan of the leads.

"In The Loop" is probably really funny - but seeing as I don't know the in's and out's of politics, I didn't appreciate it or get it like I probably should have. Also, I normally can stomach verbal vulgarities, but some of it was pointlessly strong in this one. A rental for the curious is recommended.

"Gentleman Broncos" had one of my favorite trailers of the year (surveillance doe's!), but was an unfathomably bad movie. Jemaine Clement was great, but the rest of this movie was as terrible as anything I've seen in a long time. Reliance on vomit and genital humor seem to further diminish the fun that could have been had.

Speaking of awesome movie trailers, "Black Dynamite" was another favorite trailer. Though I am not a blaxploitation cinema devotee, the film still delivers big laughs, kung fu, and a 100 dollar suit. See the trailer on youtube and give it a rent. It's like what "Undercover Brother" tried to be, but instead of mimicking "Austin Powers," "Black Dynamite" aims to recreate the period - complete with music, film grain, and costumes. A scene about Little Richard had me in stitches.

I think I am one of only several who appreciated "Couples Retreat." 'll agree that the humor is very "meh" and Vince Vaughn's schtick is hardly fresh anymore. However, it was great to see a film where the couples represented a stage nearly all people in committed relationships can identify with. Worth discussing, but an overall missed opportunity.

I have now seen "A Serious Man" 3 times. Like the Coens previous work "No Country For Old Men," this is a movie that just keeps on giving. Repeated viewings have illuminated various themes and meanings, while leaving all of the wit and irony in its place. A most recommended film, but be prepared to talk about it afterwards.

"The Fantastic Mr. Fox" is a great rental, but had it been directed by anyone else I doubt I would have cared. Wes Andersons stop motion world is indeed fun to take part in, and his OCD camerawork is given that much more control. However, the humor felt misguided. Putting The Rolling Stones in this type of a movie feels like it's trying. It's possibly my least favorite film of his, but hardly bad. Speaking of Wes Anderson, here's my Wes ratings from favorite to least - Rushmore, Bottle Rocket, The Darjeeling Limited, The Life Aquatic, The Royal Tenenbaums, The Fantastic Mr. Fox.

On the TV end of things, "Mad Men" is the television show that just keeps on giving. If you haven't seen it, give it a go. Great writing, great characters, and great visual detail create a world I can't help but be curious with.

Also, "Modern Family" is growing on me immensely, but the comparisons to "Arrested Development" are not even close. You see, "Arrested Development" is the greatest show in the history of mankind. There is no show in memory (and I'm thinking of Seinfeld too) that has tighter writing, consistent energy, and brilliant characters (I stress that I rarely use the word "brilliant" to describe something).

Speaking of funny, Am I the only one who is thankful that "Flight of the Conchords" stopped? Season 2 was hardly the amazingness that was season 1. I am glad they knew when to say no.

Then there's the fun if (incredibly) formulaic "30 Rock." It's enjoyable enough this season with plenty of laughs, but something about the proceedings feels too easy. Maybe its the fact that most of the jokes rely on a 3 step system, where one of the 3 stated things is going to obviously be ridiculous. And, for someone like Tina Fey who appears to have a disdain for Family Guy, it seems odd to continue the stream of cutaways that "Family Guy" practically invented...

Speaking of the Griffin family, I have come to realize that "Family Guy" is the equivalent of junk food - a guilty pleasure that is hardly satisfying, usually indulged in as a result of cravings, and is often gross. Yet...I still consume.

I hear that the Criterion Collection is going to be releasing "The Darjeeling Limited" and "The Thin Red Line" on bluray, which gets me excited. Any chance we could pursuade them to take it further and give us Malick's first film "Badlands" and Swedish filmmaker Lukas Moodyson's "Lilja 4-Ever"?

What have you seen lately?

"Precious: Based on the Novel Push by Sapphire"

Fantasy is a powerful tool that brings us out of our reality and into a place of maximum control, typically to ultimate gratification. Our fantasies are the controllable wishes that directly contrast the out of control aspects of our lives. Fantasy often happens in places of pain or boredom. Fantasy serves as a coping mechanism to pain, whereas in boredom it often reveals our hearts by illuminating our desires and wishes. Fantasy is unplanned, which is why it typically happens in the moment of the stressors themselves.

When do you find yourself fantasizing most often? What do you fantasize about? For those of us struggling to make ends meet, perhaps it is fantasizing about what we imagine as an affluent lifestyle. For the timid, fantasy may be about walking into a bosses office, parent’s home, or other authority figures presence and displaying boldness. For Clarice “Precious” Jones, she fantasizes about being adored.

“Precious: Based on the Novel Push by Sapphire” is the story of an African American woman in New York named Precious (played perfectly by newcomer Gabourey Sidibe) who is the victim and survivor of countless abuses. The film begins with a set up of Precious environment – her home, dominated by a monster of a Mother (played by Oscar winner MoNique, who more than deserved her awards), her school, and her neighborhood. We then see in painful detail all manner of abuses including emotional abuse, physical abuse, and sexual abuse – including incest and rape. However, an opportunity comes into Precious life that she bravely follows through on, carrying the rest of the story forward.

The direction and style of the film really took me by surprise. I was not expecting the editing, direction, and music to be so effective. Jump cuts, exits from reality to fantasy back to reality again, and music all richly texture the film. Acting is uniformly great – Real life experience with some form of abuse on the part of the filmmakers impact what we see. The performances truly authenticate the story. If the actors were directed poorly and overacted, played too flat, or were otherwise unbelievable, it would have sunk the film. The movie was obviously created with passion.

But why sit through a film where abuse of any kind is portrayed in any manner? That’s a question only you can decide for yourself (and be warned, this is a tough film to sit through), but the film attempts to give a hopeful climax in the midst of utter hopelessness. Precious is not merely likable, so much as she is so lovable. Perhaps it is the message that in spite of any experience you have been through, you have the choice to rise above it. Is healing possible after experiencing such monumental pain? If so, where is this healing?

It would be a mistake to assume that this film is about poor minorities (especially African Americans) or is a “black” movie. It would be a mistake to assume that “those people” portrayed in the film are the ones who have this sort of universal life for themselves – the poor, the ethnic group you only spend time with through television, or the teenage Mothers. It is a movie I believe that anyone can relate to because abuse is not defined by ethnicity or socio-economic status. Most of all, we can relate to this film because at its core, it is about love. Precious wants, needs, and deserves love. Love of, from and for herself.

“Precious…” came out around the same time as “The Blind Side” and they share two powerful themes – that love and education are forces of healing that are not equaled. Education is enablement, love is empowerment. In addition, each film challenges viewers about the personal human story. When we encounter people, we don’t know where they have been or what role we will play in their story. Just as importantly, we don’t know what role others will play in our story. I am grateful to be moved and reminded of such truthful things after seeing “Precious.”

Green Zone

Someone just tried to make Call of Duty: The Movie

In “Green Zone,” Matt Damon plays a soldier in a specialized unit trying to uncover the whereabouts of WMD’s in Iraq. However, all of his intel is coming up fruitless, much to his frustration. Before you can say Sarah Palin, Damon goes rogue. He then spends the rest of the film hunting down the whereabouts of WMD’s, being confronted by nosy reporters, encountering the locals, fighting soldiers, and dealing with opposing political forces within the American and Iraqi camps.

Yawn.

On paper, “Green Zone” does have ingredients to make something good. Paul Greengrass directed two Bourne films and made a legitimate masterpiece with “United 93.” Matt Damon can show his talent, and Amy Ryan was Oscar nominated for “Gone Baby Gone.” Brendan Gleeson was honest and balanced in the offensively fun “In Bruges.” Greg Kinnear is also capable of delivering good performances as well. Yet, everyone seems to be going through the motions, making a film without much passion.

For a modern warfare movie, “Green Zone” feels awfully boring due to just how familiar and stale the proceedings feel. While there are a couple of legitimate action sequences, they rarely rouse or maintain tension. Problematically, the reuniting of Greengrass and Damon swiftly recalls images of Jason Bourne, while the shaky cam cinematography plus grainy appearance make it look and feel like a half baked Bourne sequel. There is even a close quarter’s combat scene much like the book-fu fight in the Bourne films. It takes away from much of the uniqueness that the film may have tried for and undercuts any message about the conflict that may have been intended.

What “Green Zone” did do was narrate much of the cultures current view of the conflict in Iraq. We were sent for good reason, got betrayed, feel misled and lied to, and now are endlessly cynical about what Government tells us. We question why we are there, what the purpose is, and while attempting to unite a divided Iraq have become divided ourselves. When the end of the film finally rolls up, the “message” is hardly revolutionary. What you expect to happen probably will happen.

This is not to say that “Green Zone” is a bad film, so much as it is a tired film. It’s competent, but merely so. The acting, cinematography, and action feel recycled and borrowed from better movies. If you’re itching for some war or action, check the Netflix selection instead.

The Hurt Locker

Addiction is a powerful force that drives those caught in its grasp to do illogical, selfish, and moronic things. In search of the next high, addicts stop at nothing. The drive and compulsion consumes and manipulates the physical body, the critical mind, and the sensitive heart. What once was too potent is not enough. Addiction can take the form of sex, drugs, alcohol, and as “The Hurt Locker” points out – adrenaline.

“The Hurt Locker” is about a group of soldiers in Iraq whose daily job is to dismantle roadside bombs. In the film, we watch them deal with their last 38 days of active duty. The three men each have unique characterizations. Sgt. Sanborn is a solid, level headed thinker who appears to be a fearless soldier with his wits about him. Spc. Eldridge is more timid, appearing to be aware of the possibility of death at every corner. Then there is Sgt. James. Sgt. James is an adrenaline addict.

After an incredible opening sequence, director Katheryn Bigelow sets the tone and makes some ground rules. First – no one is safe. Second – everything is game. As a result of the first sequence, it is anyone’s guess as to what will happen next. Since the stars of the film are not typical A-listers (which is smart casting for this film), I developed a different attachment to the events on screen.

Bigelow uses every object on screen to create tension. I found myself looking at objects and movements on screen guessing what role they might play in the film’s events. Is the phone just a phone? What about the videocamera, or the seemingly desperate man and his claims in the city square? As a result of the tools at Bigelow’s hands, everything has the possibility to create tension. She mostly succeeds in creating the tension in nearly every frame.

However, the film began to fall a little bit flat to me due to its logic. I began questioning how Sgt. James got away with so much broken protocol. Surely, in a film about soldiers and war, this man – who is supposedly a brother with his fellow soldiers – wouldn’t act so recklessly putting them in harms way, right? And wouldn’t his commanding officer reprimand him instead of praise him for some of his decisions? Or what about the stupidity of staying in place when the person occupying it before you was killed there by gunfire? It just doesn’t make sense.

But after thinking more about the film, it became clear that “The Hurt Locker” is as much about the psychology of an addict as it is about the psychology of the US armed forces. Dismantling bombs plays out like getting more and more intense hits off of a drug – each man is playing with something that could destroy them in a heartbeat. Too much exposure or too many risky decisions, and death is certain. The parallels to substance abuse are everywhere.

But simply dismantling bombs is not enough of an adrenaline high and things get riskier as the film moves on. It becomes clear that Sgt. James is not dismantling bombs in service of his country. He is doing it in service of himself. Each successive bomb situation is approached with greater degrees of intensity, increasing the amount of adrenaline pulsing through Sgt. James veins. To say much more would be spoiling a lot, but the things Sgt. James does becomes increasingly riskier. He goes to get his high at the risk of not only his life, but the lives of his fellow soldiers. He is out of control. It is not about following protocol, it is about getting fueled and high on adrenaline. With this view, my thoughts about the “The Hurt Locker” grew more appreciative. The film is more concerned about the characters than it is about right or wrong.

On the imdb.com message boards for the film, people who allege to be soldiers or familiar with the world of the armed forces point to how unrealistic much of the film is. Should this be true, I find it disappointing that Bigelow didn’t take better care of some of the details in the film. More authenticity would have made the film stronger. However, what we are left with is a really good movie with lots of tension and energy that shows patterns and parallels of addiction.

Avatar

I just don’t understand cross species love.

I wanted to love the King Kong remake, but I couldn’t buy a romantic plot between a human female and an oversized gorilla. When Family Guy episodes focus on Brian the dog hooking up with human females, I don't laugh. It’s like asking me to believe that I could fall in love with a horse. In fact, what if someone made a full length movie of Mr. Ed where the plot hinged on Ed’s burning desire for his keeper’s wife?

Talk about forbidden love…

In “Avatar,” James Cameron’s sci-fi special effects opus, a marine who is lacking the use of his legs gets hooked up through sci-fi machinery to become a Na-Vi (as in “native” – a blue alien creature that is an obvious reference to Native Americans). He becomes them to learn about and ultimately exploit them. That’s because their home sits amongst a highly valuable energy source on their planet called Pandora. Things get all twisty though when our hero falls in love with the people, ways, and an individual of the Na-Vi.

No mention of “Avatar” is complete without talking about the amazing technology the movie employs. “Avatar” is visually dazzling and it makes a good case for 3D films. It looks (mostly) stunning with bizarre winged creatures, insects, and horses. The rainforest type setting with light up flooring a la Billie Jean is lush and imaginative – we believe it could actually exist but recognize it as alien all the same. In addition, the human’s technology and aircraft all look inspired but somehow familiar. Cameron’s Pandoran world is grounded in enough reality that it never feels so far away.

But as good as “Avatar” looks, we’ve seen it before. If “Avatar” were a book, you probably would be bored. This is a tired story, filled with obvious allegories and unintentionally humorous stereotypes. The American’s (though I don’t recall nationality ever being mentioned – it’s an organization run by a corrupt company) march in to get a much needed but costly energy supply. The company has no qualms marching in and destroying a civilization with their own customs and ideals to get this energy source. The company tries to reason with the Na-Vi but they can’t do it and get exactly what they want. So, when one tribe/culture/person won’t work with your country, what else to do but use lots of firepower and brand them terrorists! (The line “we’ll fight terrorism with terrorism” even makes an appearance from a crazy white guy drunk on the mission). It felt too obvious and silly.

While the story is ultimately uninteresting, it is obvious that James Cameron is a gifted director when it comes to action. The climactic ending sequence is riveting, even though it is fairly obvious about how the movie will end. The scenes are shot coherently and cleanly, and we never have to wonder just what is going on (there are even multiple “300” type slow-mo sequences that probably made Zac Snyder blush). I also feel the need to mention that James Cameron likes blowing up large objects. Cameron goes titanic on a massive tree delivering similarly spectacular results and devastation.

Spirituality is also a big component of the film. Like the believability of Cameron’s visual world where things look like ours but aren’t the same, the spiritual connection he strives for is Pandoran but it borrows from a lot of animism. The trees, animals and flowers all seem to have souls and spirits. It is perplexing to me that people find a spirit inside nature but somehow are closed off to the idea that nature points to its actual Creator. Granted, the people and world of “Avatar” are made up, but we are kidding ourselves if we don’t recognize that all creative endeavors inherently express some type of worldview.

It would be unfair to say that “Avatar” is like a beautiful woman with no brains, because “Avatar is not a garbage film. “Avatar” is just an average film. No amount of visual pop and creative 3D can overcome how tired the story felt. How could I be held in suspense if the ending was in plain sight before it happened? How am I supposed to care about the characters if they feel like stereotypes that have little depth? And seriously, do you really expect me to buy into a love story between an alien and a human (complete with a brief sex scene)? Sci-fi and fantasy enthusiasts may get more out of the experience than I did, but once was enough for me.

Christopher's top 11 Favorite Films of the Decade

Any perusal of the internet will reveal a fascination in top 10 lists. As many others have, here are my top 11 films of the decade. There are some honorable mentions that didn’t make the cut like About A Boy, No Country for Old Men, Amelie, Children of Men, Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind, and There Will Be Blood. There are also films I have yet to discover – like The Hurt Locker, Moon, and so many foreign and independent films I didn’t make the time to see.

For the last decade, movies grew from being an engaging curiosity, to hobby, to full blown love which I have attempted to integrate in my professional life. In the past 10 years I learned about people like Federico Fellini, Martin Scorsese, Sergio Leone, Terrence Malick, and Jean Pierre Melville. I found the Criterion Collection, which gave me an excellent entry point into the world of movies that demand thought, introspection, and conversation. Movies have flowed from entertainment vehicles, to pretentious art house snob lingo, to simple joys I love sharing with others.

This list will be called “Christopher’s 11 Favorite Films of the Past Decade.” The key word is “favorite.” These are all films that left a mark on me and ones I have in the past, and currently do recommend anyone to see.

Punch Drunk Love (2002)

“I have a love in my life. It makes me stronger than anything you can imagine.” – Barry Egan

While the films are in no particular order in terms of favorites, “Punch Drunk Love” is undoubtedly my favorite of the decade, perhaps even of all time. “Punch Drunk Love” is the film I associate most with my wife. It hit me in ways no other film has – I found Adam Sandler to be relatable in a curious way with his awkwardness, yet tunnel vision determination. The feelings communicated in the movie – protection, aggravation, romance, anger/violence, and confusion – are all feelings I experienced to various intensities when I fell in love with my wife.

I am also one of the 7 people in the world who owns the soundtrack. I mean, how many of us would go out and buy such an ethereal, bizarre set of sound and play it on a regular basis? Well, I did – and Jon Brion’s remix of “He Needs Me” hooks into my skin like few other songs. The whole experience of “Punch Drunk Love” is uncomfortable, surreal, bizarre, unsettling, and yet completely aware. When I first fell in love with Colleen, I knew very shortly that she would always be the love of my life. I can’t explain that kind of love. No other film communicates falling in love in quite the same way, and it will take a filmmaker with acute awareness to pull it off again.

Hot Fuzz (2007)

“Have you ever fired 2 guns whilst flying through the air?” - Danny Butterman.

I have seen no movie which has entertained me more in the past decade than “Hot Fuzz.” The actors look as though they are having fun, the story is fun (if surprisingly suspenseful and gory), and the pay off at the end is among my favorites ever. If you get bored at all during the film’s excessive running time, hang in there for the (literally) explosive ending.

I tried “Shaun of the Dead” before “Hot Fuzz” but hadn’t seen the zombie movies it lovingly points to. I hadn’t seen the movies “Hot Fuzz” points to either, but the film does it for you. There are scenes from Bad Boys 2, Point Break, and other absurd action flicks interjected throughout the film to humorous effect. It’s the perfect homage that manages to also make light of its referenced materials. It is also the most entertaining movie I have seen over the last 10 years.

American Splendor (2003)

“You might as well know right off the bat, I had a vasectomy.” – Harvey Pekar

No film wowed me with originality in the way “American Splendor” did. “American Splendor” is the true life story of a man who uses comic books as a means of coping with his bizarre life. This includes a world filled with illness, love, attachment, and above all – a bitter soul. Or perhaps brittle soul is more like it. The main character is played in perfect pitch and tone by Paul Giammatti, an incredibly gifted actor when he wants to be.

But the originality in of the film is in its blending of mediums. “American Splendor” combines documentary, animation, and drama to drive the narrative. The story couldn’t be told nearly as well with a traditional structure, as each of the typically alienated storytelling mediums intertwine just where they need to. The movie is emotionally affecting, especially the final scenes and even though we are in Harvey’s bitterness, there is something loveable about Harvey and his world. Ordinary life is indeed pretty complex stuff.

The Station Agent (2003)

“Would you do me a favor and not look at me right now?” Olivia Harris

Community is a topic I am endlessly fascinated with. How do we connect with others? What does it take to be vulnerable about pain and suffering? Who do we laugh and play with? “The Station Agent” is a lovely movie with great humor to go with its more painful moments. A dwarf wants to get away from the attention he is getting from the world and so he moves into an old train station his former boss left for him. He ends up being swallowed up in relationship by a talkative Cuban man and a grieving white woman.

What follows is simple and affecting as the three talk about their lives and spend time with one another. It’s the soul of the film that works. It’s a perfect mixture of genuine acting, great writing, and meaningful story. It’s the stereotypical “gem” of a film that is simple, yet difficult to pinpoint. It also happens to be a must see.

Lars and the Real Girl (2007)

Sally: “We came over to sit.”
Hazel: “That's what people do when tragedy strikes.”
Sally: “They come over, and sit.”

The first time I saw “Lars and the Real Girl” I was disappointed. I was expecting a “quirky” comedy. But future viewings revealed that “Lars” is no ordinary film. It is honest, and it perhaps the most perceptive film I have ever seen about attachment and relationships. To add praise, the therapy scenes are written better than any I have ever seen in a film. Not to mention just how sweet and loving this film is.

“Lars” gives a mythical, unreal picture of community and love, alluded to in its first lines spoken in a scene at church. People all over the film show how they project much like Lars into their own dolls, stuffed animals, and action figures. It equates Lars as a person with everyone else, rather than making him some kind of outcast. It poses a question I hope I am always asking myself – what would it take to love someone right where they are at without agenda?

Brick (2005)

“Throw one at me if you want, hash head. I've got all five senses and I slept last night, that puts me six up on the lot of you.” – Brendan Frye

Watching “Brick” in the theater was a rediscovering of why I love movies. It was original, intense, and strangely believable in spite of its otherworldliness. If Stanwyck and MacMurray were teens, they may have been cast. But here we get the kid from “3^rd Rock From the Sun.” However, Joseph Gordon Levitt is one of the few actors whom I have gone out to see other films as a result of his performance here.

The real story is first time feature director Rian Johnson whose screenplay is a rewatchable masterpiece that takes several viewings for people like me to appreciate. For the uninitiated, imagine if the classic 50’s film noir was updated in Orange County with only the dialogue intact, but the scenery is modern day. It’s kind of how I might describe “Brick,” a brilliant mystery that keeps on giving over and over again.

The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring (2001)

“Nobody tosses a dwarf.” - Gimli

“Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring” took me somewhere I had never been before. It is possibly the only film I could endure at 3 hours for midnight showings in the theater. It is amazing. The characters are dealing with life and death, love and fate, and they are doing this on an epic adventure. I was so taken in by the story and scenery that it was impossible for the 2^nd and 3^rd installments to top the first dip into the Middle Earth.

So much has already been written about these films, so I’ll just say this: If you haven’t seen “The Lord of the Rings” yet, you are a fool.

Waltz With Bashir (2008)

“Pray and shoot!” – Ari Folman

“Waltz With Bashir” is a devastating reframe of war, soldiers, and healing. Ari Folman created an artistic masterpiece – an animated documentary which details his experience in an Israeli conflict, that I admittedly don’t understand. And that’s okay, because while the history of the conflict is not something I am intimately aware of, Folman’s story is about how he experienced, forgot, and remembered war. It is his story, not a chronicle of the war itself.

How does one animate a documentary? Folman did it by interviewing subjects from his past, trimming their statements into a screenplay, and then he had each person (with exception of a couple who refused) re-speak their lines into a microphone. Once they recorded their lines, the animation told the story. The movie works as a surreal journey into war by confused soldiers who aren’t the machismo brotherhood so often emphasized in American war films. Yet, it is the films jaw dropping finale that left me crying and so struck with emotion. It is a sequence that will forever be in my memory. It will affect you too.

Lilja 4-Ever (2002)

“I'm not your property. Think you can buy me? You can't buy me. You can't buy my heart and soul.” – Lilja

Didn’t see “Lilja 4-Ever” in the theaters? That’s because you can only rent it through Netflix. Unlike “Trade,” another attempt at making a film about the horrors of human trafficking, “Lilja 4-Ever” has a certain X factor. It will scar you. It is like a horror film where the main character is trapped or being chased, except Lilja’s horror – being smuggled into human trafficking against her will due to poverty and desperation – is very much real for thousands of people.

I saw the film in a Pepperdine University auditorium for a school event. Students later told me they were scarred for life. I am too. But human trafficking should scar us. We need to be frightened, reminded, and scarred by these stories because they are true and real. Of course, this wouldn’t be effective if the story wasn’t told so damned well. We are trapped with Lilja, and the eye covering point of view shots from Lilja are among the most disturbingly effective any film has ever created.

Monsters Inc. (2001)

“Mike Waszowski!” – Boo

It’s hard to know which Pixar film to select because all of them are amazing movies (“Cars” being the exception). They aren’t amazing animated movies, so much as they are simply amazing movies. “Animated movie” has a certain negative connotation to it perhaps due to the association of “kid’s movie” and “animation.” But Pixar is different – each of their films has something so uniquely special – “The Incredibles” as metaphor for family system, “Up” and its out of nowhere opening, or “Ratatouille” and its metaphor for Disney and quality storytelling.

Yet of all their films, “Monsters Inc” is perhaps my favorite story. The reason is because of “Boo.” She is adorable, and animated so convincingly in her mannerisms (not to mention the utterly perfect voice acting). It may not be the most beloved in Pixar’s suite of films, but it is certainly my favorite.

The Fall (2006)

“Are you trying to save my soul?” – Roy Walker

No film wowed me in recent memory as much as “The Fall” did. Every scene is a freezable piece of art that is filled with overwhelming visual power and beauty. The film was filmed in many countries over several years by its director and it makes no use of CGI. When I saw the film and what its director Tarsem Singh created, I couldn’t help but be sucked in visually and aurally.

It’s a pretty amazing story as well. Think of it as a clever “The Princess Bride” with a Getty Museum flair. If you have a bluray player, don’t see it any other way…unless of course that way is in the theater. An absolute must see.

"The Twilight Saga: New Moon"

Typically when I write about films, I try and do it from the perspective of what can we take that might be personally enriching. In the case of Twilight, this is me writing and having fun. Please excuse my diversion for a moment...

“The Twilight Saga: New Moon” is about a 104 year old pedophile who falls for a 17 year old personality-less emo girl. In this fascinating installment, children with supernatural powers turn into wolfs, speak in tongues, and walk around shirtless. They also have super awesome long hair, fix motorcycles, and find even more reasons to not wear shirts. It’s awesome. The reason all of this on screen trickery occurs is because of head scratching codes and a love story for the ages.

Particularly, the ages of 12-15 years old.

To say that I did not resonate with “New Moon” would be the same as saying bananas do not resonate with hot mustard. The movie is two solid hours long and painfully slow. There are about 3 action sequences that divert from the chatter, but that’s about it. It is a very talkative movie that says absolutely nothing at all. One particular scene where Bella (the love interest, played by a wooden Kristen Stewart) and her maybe/possibly lover Jacob (some guy with a fantastic hairdo) talk in her bedroom goes something like this:

“I can’t do this”

“You’re saying no?”

“That’s right…no”

“So…you are saying no. I don’t know”

“But it must be…no”

I am paraphrasing here, but not by much. The line delivery is so stilted and overly serious, I thought George Lucas stepped behind the camera and yelled at the actors by saying “Be serious guys! Let me see serious” just like in the second Star Wars movie where Natalie Portman and Haden Christensen hilariously talk about Natalie’s sandpaper skin. It’s hard to know if it is terrible direction, or terrible acting, which is a bummer because the film is directed by the guy who made “About A Boy,” a personal favorite of mine.

While others around the globe have fallen in love with the story, I don’t get what makes the story so good (at least in this film version). The vampire and werewolf mythologies are tiny footnotes that could otherwise make this fun. The leads are uninteresting in spite of their supernatural hot sauce, and Bella has virtually no likeable qualities.

Logic also has to arrive at the front door of your mind at some point as well – Why is it that a 104 year old remains in high school? He could always maintain his secrecy by going to college if he were really that bored…And why in the hell is he picking up on teenagers? Doesn’t that kind of disturb anybody, at least comically? You know, the fact that the guy is 104 and he is picking up on 17 year olds? And if you have lived on the planet for 104 years and met Bella in all her drama, wouldn’t that be more of a turn off as opposed to a life long romance?

The movie becomes distractingly bad when we observe the cast. 5 years from now, this movie will be irrelevant and it is ripe for SNL and South Park parodies. All of the music and style is so self consciously hip, it grates the pace along. The vampire females all went to the Vidal Sassoon academy for a haircut before they appeared on screen. They wear today’s brilliant fashions and look like they all just jumped out of the latest Abercrombie and Fitch catalogue. Sequences of slow motion running are littered throughout the movie. In one particularly scene it is hilarious – it comes at the end where Edward and Bella blissfully run through the woods like they are in a love story parody. Or Shrek. The theater I was in laughed out loud.

While “New Moon” does have a soundtrack filled with today’s indie pop heroes, it sort of shows just how commercialized the music has become. I have long noticed that the lyrics of the so called counter-culture indy bands are whining children sad about girls and relationships, but this movie just highlights it, and painfully at that. The lyrics and dialogue are so loathing and adolescent, it’s as though the script were written as a project in my high school drama class.

But…

I know that I am not the target demographic for this film. I doubt anyone was trying to make a great piece of art that places alongside Bergman, Hitchcock, or Fellini. For those who read the books, I salute thee and hope that you enjoyed the film for bringing the story to visual life. There is nothing wrong with liking what you like. In this case you probably just have bad taste.

But hey, I also used to adore The Monkees TV show as a kid.

In the end, this is what we call a booty cash call. It was not made for any other reason than to make money, which is why it gets the hottest tween actors and actresses, hip music, and shirtless tomfoolery. I know the films intentions, and I don’t fault it for that. But for any other reason, this is a big pile of crap waiting for your money. And with two more installments on the way, you and I know that it will get it over and over again.