movies i loved, movies i want to see: 2009

while vainly compiling my best of music lists has been a tradition for at least one year, throwing together a bunch of movie titles is a new one for me. so cut me some slack.

it's telling that my list of movies to-see is way longer than those i did watch in 2009. i probably should just go ahead and delete this post altogether. luckily for you, i've got some time to kill.

movies i loved, '09:

district 9--i can't get over how awesome this movie is. no, it wasn't the first to pair a plot with visually stunning science fiction and exploding pigs, but it might be the best.

up--yes, we all cried in the opening scene. damn you, pixar. this is a children's movie! it maybe one of pixar's best. which is saying quite a bit.

where the wild things are--beautiful and sad. jonze captures childhood in all it's adventure, loneliness, confusion, and imagination. watching it can be wrenching and joyful often in the same minute.

avatar--yes, you've read/seen this story arch about billion times, and it was probably delivered better than cameron in avatar. but you can't get past how much fun this movie is to watch. seriously, it's worth seeing. and in 3d.

julie and julia--whoa, left field. my wife made me watch and it was fantastic. both the ladies are excellent. the food looks pretty good, too.

coraline--a dark children's movie? was tim burton involved? as far as i know, no. but coraline is fantastic. visually stunning, scary, and with a compelling story. who knew a kids movie could deal with mother/daughter relationships so well? nothing is more visually arresting than the mother-spider threatening to consume her child. excellent, weird stuff.

movies i want to see, '09:

up in the air--the book left something to be desired, but i think the story will translate well into a movie. as an added plus, apparently every critic is in love with it.

the informant--this american life did an actual episode on this guy a few years ago. they replayed it around the release of the movie and i was sold. sounds like an awesome character study and bit of corporate history.

fabulous mr. fox--wes anderson and stop motion? i feel like he should have been doing this long ago. it's a shame i haven't seen this yet.

sherlock holmes--guilty pleasure. i'm banking on the fact that it's been several years since i got obsessed with conan doyle, so hopefully i won't mind as much that downey jr. is butchering the character as well as the bad guys.

invictus--i love clint eastwood. gran torino was easily the best movie of '08. though i'm intsted to see how he'll do "feel good," i recently heard a friend complain that it was "too historical." that made me really excited.

moon--again, a shame that i haven't seen this yet. it has all the earmarks of great science fiction.

the road--the book rocked my world. i'm preparing for a let-down, but hoping for something that gets in the ball park of what made the story so amazing--love and despair amidst chaos and death.

a serious man--this is mainly on the principle that the cohen brothers make good movies. even if burn after reading was disappointing, i've heard some good stuff about this one.

the hurt locker--a good war movie about iraq? judging from about every other non-documentary film that referenced the war, i didn't think it possible.

zombieland--the only surprise here is that i haven't seen it yet.

"we have met the enemy..."

go see district 9. i know, it's the big sensation. the movie makers spent next to nothing, campaigned obliquely and it shredded the box office opening weekend. the plot is not complex. aliens landed on earth and for some reason can't leave. they've been quarantined in a place called 'district 9.' in johannesburg of all places--not very subtle. but don't write it off yet. i loved this movie. the premise is pure science fiction genius. aliens have come to earth in a disc-shaped spaceship, but rather than being bent on human destruction, they are refugees.

the nerd in me became excited as soon as i saw the preview. is that a giant alien spaceship? is it hovering over johannesburg? are those humans clad in white supposed to be bad or good? is this filmed like a documentary? so many of the right questions.

from the perspective of the science fiction nerd that i am, the movie did not disappoint. the aliens and their technology (read: cool weapons) was creatively imagined. the actor portraying the main character does an excellent job. i instantly empathized with him as a very real but flawed character. he's no hero. he seems somewhat pathetic and then only interested in saving himself. one of my favorite things about this movie is that it does a wonderful job of letting all its character play to their self-interests in really authentic ways.

there are several antagonists, but all fall under the umbrella of mnu, a giant defense company, not unlike blackwater (now xe servcies). this adds another layer to an already rich story. one that increasingly reflects our own, boring, non-sci-fi lives.

i think the most difficult part of the film is the audience's ability to identify with aliens that resemble large bugs (their referred to as "prawns" in the movie). the filmmakers fight to make the audience empathize with the aliens by giving them eyes similar to our own. the dialogue style between the two species is also authentic. the humans and aliens can understand each other vaguely, but each speaks in their own language and they often misinterpret one another. again, though the subject is pretty fantastic, the way the characters operate is very believable.

throughout the film, the parallels to our own society are purposefully explicit. it is this lack of subtlety that i think makes many true science fiction movies great. this movie does an excellent job of trying to let its characters and situations play themselves out in the world they inhabit. at the same time, this is sci-fi and it's supposed to be absurd. we're talking about an alien spaceship floating over johannesburg for 25 years. things should get a little crazy. naturally, there are a lot of ridiculous explosions--buildings explode, aliens explodes, people explode, pigs explode. it is over the top. does this make the movie contradictory? yes, but as any good sci-fi film would be.

like i said earlier, it's pretty explicit from the outset that we're getting into some heavy stuff when the human-alien relationships reflect apartheid-era south africa. the documentary-style filmaking helps parallel the fantastic events of the film to our own society. the sight of burning and armored cars rumbling through the hulks of destroyed cars are too familiar to make this escapist.

the fundamental theme of the film is the "us versus them" mentality. without giving too much away, we watch the main character, who has been profiting off the status quo come to realize that he is a 'them' and not an 'us.' it's great stuff--engaging and fun to watch.

at the same time, this has me thinking alot about metaphors, particularly in science fiction. i worry that the very nature of the genre will mean that much of the weight of the story is lost on the audience. again, i love science fiction and i think that more often than not it reflects more about the society of the creator than the fantastic scenes it portrays. i fear though that in a film like this, the metaphor can become too theoretical. the film uniquely portrays a very old story: that we will always seek division over unity. that it will inevitably be easier to justify persecuting and demonizing the other side than to struggle to live together. but i guess it has me wondering that the power of that simple theme will be lost or overwhelmed by extravagant nature of the broader story. i know that it is part of the limitation of the genre. maybe that is what differentiates a simply interesting story with one that is ultimately true. the lessor story will be lost in the spectacle while the truest narrative will penetrate even the most fantastic situations. i prefer to think distrcit 9 is the latter.

george clooney is a real person

[this post was supposed to go out last week. my abysmal blogging habits continue to disappoint even my expectations. so, one week later, here it is]

my half-hearted belief that modern film actors don't exist except as ones and zeroes on gigantic hard drives in studio back lots died on monday evening. up the block from our house, we caught george clooney and crew filming a scene for up in the air. when i say "caught," i mean we stood with a group of about 50 people and watched a movie being made across the street. i'm 95% positive that the tanish grayish head i saw driving a red chrysler was his. 

he and accompanying actress pulled into the front of the cheshire parking lot a few times and then production moved inside. while the cheshire's "fox and hound" bar is my favorite location to drink beer and pretend to be in england or a cheeky fake england, i was a little surprised they wanted to film there. it got even weirder when we realized the production crew had put wisconsin plates on all the cars. wtf?!

when you see a shabby, kitsch, tudor style motel in the movie and assume by the cars' plates you're in wisconsin, remember that it's actually missouri and my mission will have been accomplished.

where the wild things are

i know i've been absent for too long. and i promise a more in depth post soon. but for now, enjoy.

hat tip to em for mentioning the song and to AustinatMCG  for posting the linke via twitter. this made my afternoon.

coraline

as a rule, if movies are made for kids and involve creepy stop motion, i like them. i can't believe i still haven't seen the corpse bride. so i was pretty excited when i heard about coraline and read good reviews. i've never read the book, so i had no real expectations going in. 

the movie did not disappoint. the plot is roughly about a young girl who discovers a magical world that seems a million times better than her own. but (shocker) it's not. though there's nothing new in this story, it's the delivery that is so great. even before it's revealed that coraline's wonderful alternate world is actually a pretty scary place, there a few clues that should raise an eyebrow (her alternate parents have buttons for eyes--wait, what?!). then, when the full transformation takes place, her alternate mother becomes a pretty freaky villain. prepare yourself. 

in fact, i thought this movie had a really good insight into parent-child relationships. it's pretty intense for any movie, especially one geared for children, to delve into the theme of love as consumption. after the movie, my mom (visiting stl for the weekend), remarked that she would never have taken us to see the film as children. for younger children, i would probably agree with my overprotective mother, but on the other hand, this is exactly the kind of kids movie i'd take an older child to see. when did fairy tales become un-creepy, anyway? 

though i just watched the film in lame 2d, there is a also a 3d version in theaters. i thought the movie was beautiful and would love to see selected scenes in 3d, but a full feature might be pushing it. 

showtime at the hi-pointe

the past two weekends, i walked down the block to dogtown's local theater, the hi-pointe. the single screen theater has been around since the 20's, under various owners. apparently, they typically show a mixture of indie and big-name flicks. the past two i've seen have both been blockbusters: the dark knight and tropic thunder. more on those later.

i'm pretty excited about being able to regularly stroll down the street to catch a flick. though i was spoiled with the "riveria" in knoxville, the place more than makes up for its lack of option with class. if you can handle the steep steps to the men's bathroom (ADA standards noticeably absent), you are rewarded with urinals that have been voted the best in st. louis by the river front times. yes, they have the generous full length models.

its pretty amazing to watch a movie in a place where people having doing the same for the past 80 years. i'm excited about experiencing many other st. louis gems, but this has been my first.

also, you gotta love a place that let's you know what you're getting into on the marquee.

ok, now onto the movies. if you aren't a nerd, you probably shouldn't read on. i'm not planning on editing to much of this and it will get pretty dorky. also, while i don't give any secret plot points away, i will discuss the movie in detail.

the dark knight:
i went into this movie with very high expectations. i was a big fan of batman begins because it restored the story of batman to something above an overblown music video. but it also was just a good film. batman has always been melodramatic and overwrought, but in a way that still told a good story.

the dark knight may be one of the few sequels that actually exceeded my expectations. as before the tone of the film was excellent. realistic enough to draw you in, but with enough comic book high-paced action to keep things moving.

the acting was excellent. heath ledger literally disappeared into his role. you find yourself watching the movie just for him. as a whole, his scenes stand out as my favorite.

the plot really takes it up a notch from the first. whereas batman begins strayed into hero movie formula on occasion, the dark knight dug in like a good crime drama. at times it was difficult to keep up with the plot--which was good. it's nice to have multiple layers to sift through. it picks up with what batman started in the first film, which is one of the themes of this one. we see batman dealing with what he has created choosing to fight as a vigilante. the fake batmen were a smart addition. the opening scene is excellent--it sets up the plot while introducing us to the joker's sense of style.

the writers really let themselves go with the joker. i think this is where the film truly succeeds. they allow his character to run free, which brings out the complexities of the story that make batman so great, like the relationship between batman and the joker. does the existence of batman make the joker's appearance inevitable? (though i haven't read it, apparently this is the theme that the killing joke by alan moore explores, next on my list of graphic novels to read)

will and i were discussing this when he was in town and i have to give credit to him for bring it up. but it is through the joker that the movie also explores philosophical questions. the first comes from the pressure that citizens, policemen, etc. put on batman to turn himself in. the joker has decided that if batman turns himself in, he'll stop killing more people. out of fear, everyone then places the onus on batman stop more murders. if only he would reveal himself, the joker will stop. what we are willing to sacrifice to have what we want right now? ultimately, the joker changes his mind and decides that life is better with batman around.

the other occurred when the joker rigged the two boats to explode. the boat with the regular citizens votes to blow up the other boat, containing criminals. if one boat does not blow up the other before midnight they are both destroyed. they know it would be wrong to incinerate the other boat, but by taking a vote they try to pass off responsibility to the majority. i thought this was an interesting point about potential weaknesses of democracy, majority rule, and reliance on opinion polls. that's me reading into it.

i love any film that rises above its genre. the dark knight transcends the common super hero movie. but then again, i'm a pretty huge nerd.

tropic thunder:
this movie is pretty funny. nothing special, it pretty much meets expectations. there's nothing like hollywood making fun of itself. unfortunately, its blazing saddles attempt to mock racism seems more like lip service--it takes shots at african-americans, asians, and mentally retarded people alike, but it's generally a funny movie. however, if you find yourself in the wrong circle, you may have to defend your decision to see the film.