2009: The Year that was So Awesome It Deserved a Reboot

You know, I'm a fan of the 2004 versions of the Star Wars movies. Aside from the whole "Han and Greedo shooting at the same time" thing (which makes me want to Sarlacc myself) they're pretty great. The extended dance sequence at Jabba's also sucks. But overall: the effects look better, the sound is better, and the other added scenes are good. Of course, I also like to update my computer because watching the little bar go up is aesthetic to me. I just love the idea of advancing and improving things, especially for reasons of continuity. Which is why they need to add Vader's Theme to A New Hope! Very irksome...apologies, this is turning into a Star Wars post. When it's actually a reboot of my Oscar post that started it all. The format is more comparable to my recent posts. So I essentially added more babbling and incoherence to my same opinions. But at least I didn't charge you, this director's cut is free.

We begin with my favorite scapegoat: Avatar. Oh how I love to pick on it. But since writing my first post I was able to watch the director's cut on DVD and it's much better. They basically put in 10 minutes at the beginning of the movie that emotionally grounds the whole thing and fixes many of the issues I had with the film. For instance, background on how Jake's twin brother died (by a mugger) sets up the theme in the story of "people are bad" and not "white people are bad." That's much better in so many ways. There's also a shot leading into the original opening shot of the film that foreshadows his transformation into a Na'vi at the end of the movie. So it does everything I said it should've done originally. The best cut of the movie would be keeping the first ten minutes and cutting Michelle Rodriguez out, along with the 3rd, 6th, and 10th mentions of "unobtanium." The film itself will someday be regarded as a Citizen Kane of sorts. Wow, I just broke two of my own rules. #1: never mention an Oscar nominee before its been mentioned in its own paragraph in its own year. #2: never make positive film comparisons to anything James Cameron has ever done. But my meaning is this: Avatar will someday be seen as the turning point for how movies are made. Most movies will be made in the same way eventually. And when that happens people will look back and have the same response I always did: "is that it?" If the feeling you get from that statement is that I'm a forward-thinking genius, you're not wrong. If you instead think I'm a hard-headed narcissist, you're also not wrong. Since my main enemy is the mindless crowd of people who actually couldn't predict the story of the film, my views on it have become much more positive over time. Watching it in my basement where people weren't chewing popcorn in my ear helped too. The second time around the uses of "unobtanium" didn't seem as frequent and there's something about watching a predictable movie a second time that is kind of charming. Because you know what's coming not due to sub-par storytelling but instead due to the fact that you've seen it. So it's not as bothersome. Then it's much easier to enjoy the breathtaking scenery (way easier to enjoy in 2D I'll have you know), epic score, and sweeping battle scenes. It's also better than at least two of the movies I always say it rips off so there you go. Ugh, all of those positive comments I wrote are putting a bad taste in my fingers.

Thankfully I can start to talk negatively about The Blind Side. Well, not really. It's not too bad. Since this was the first year since the 40s or so that there were 10 nominees I think they tried to really mix things up. This film is a sports movie, which usually don't get nominated unless the sport is a backdrop, and it was popular and heartwarming. Plus the whole "white people and black people getting along" schtick is always a winner with the Academy. It really is quite a charming film. I mentioned before that Sandra Bullock's win for her performance was largely an audience draw but in retrospect, it's nice that someone won who wasn't chewing the scenery. To see a woman win who wasn't acting like a man. To see anyone win who wasn't disabled, distorted, evil, or all of the above. She plays a mom. A regular mom who fights for her family the way that any mother would (except the mom in another movie I'll mention in this post). When I was watching it I could definitely see my own mother getting up in people's faces, just not the "threatening to shoot drug dealers" bit. My mom would write them a mean letter that would probably make them cry but that's about it. The rest of the cast is also quite charming and even though it follows a formula it does it really well. Movies like this are done well and can be appreciated by people who aren't like me. And as I sit watching film after film as though it were a piece of meat, rarely getting caught up in it, I remember how nice it is to be that way. Even I got caught up in this movie when I was watching it though, and not just because Sandra Bullock is pretty hot. It finds a way to be a classic sports movie with a darker side to it and also humor. It beats the hell out of a William Hurt flick any day.

A pretty great and unexpected selection is District 9. I say unexpected because its predominant audience was nerds like me and the guys we hate because they have girlfriends. When people in the movie get electrocuted to the point of exploding we go "whooooo!" and their girlfriends jump in their laps and we go "ughhhhhh." I watched in on Blu-Ray in my basement though so I didn't have that problem. It's rare that you see a sci-fi movie that manages to be original in any way. If it's cheery it's Star Trek, if not it's Blade Runner. The latter is way overrated by the way, but I'll talk about that in a possibly upcoming blog series entitled "Movies that Make you Think...About Why People Like It." It'll be a companion piece to my "Film Pariahs" series about movies people don't like that they should. Anyway, this movie takes place in modern day and I LOVE THAT. Sci-fi movies that take place today are so much more compelling. Because instead of creating an entire story universe of societal norms and paranoias, we can use our own. We know how people in their situation might react because we are those people. It's also a perfect example of a film that has allegorical significance as a backdrop but not that defines the whole narration. The opening of the film sets up the comparison with apartheid but they never shove it in your face. What they do is give you a documentary-style, sci-fi epic with overtones as broad as The Prince and the Pauper and mech suits and the aforementioned electrical explosions. It's pretty freaking amazing. You know you've got a great story when you're enjoying the film already before you even realize what the real plot is. I'd have been totally compelled by a story that was solely about the strife between the humans and the alien prawns. Then we realize that it's actually about the main character slowly turning into a prawn. It's the classic "see how the other half lives" story except it's interesting. It does all of the requisite "those who we thought to be enemies aren't so bad after all" but it also makes clear that not every prawn has a heart of gold. This establishes them as a believable entity instead of a propaganda piece for a species that doesn't even exist (which it could have easily become). Then we'd be back to "look at how bad white people are." Like I can't see that on the news every day of the week. It has that high budget Indie feel to it (not an oxymoron) and I'm very much looking forward to the director's forthcoming works.

A movie I still have nothing good to say about is An Education. You might as well consult my original post on this one. It doesn't deserve to have much more time devoted to it. Except that perhaps I originally wasn't brave enough on my blog to point out the line of dialogue: "I don't want to lose my virginity to a banana." Can you take any movie seriously that has that line in it? Only if it's intentionally not serious. If Hot Tub Time Machine had that line it would've been hysterical. Because once you're traveling back to the 80s via a tub full of boiling water anything goes. But instead your response is A: eew, B: you wonder if anyone actually relates to that line and chuckles affectionately as they reminisce which leads you to C: double eew. On one hand, I'd like to say that I can't fully appreciate a movie about a young girl's sexual awakening in the sixties for the obvious reason: I grew up in the nineties. But Nick Hornby, who adapted the screenplay, grew up in the sixties so I guess he has a better idea. Except for the bit about how we're both men. The book upon which the movie is based is written by a woman. But that doesn't mean anything, because the original version of The Lion King was about a melancholy Danish prince who sees dead people when he's not dealing with his Oedipus complex or suicidal girlfriend. And if I'm being truly cynical, I'll assume that the woman who wrote the book had a very similar experience to the girl in the movie. To which I say: "just because you got duped into marrying a con artist doesn't mean we want to hear you whine about it." If you want to get back at him don't be all "ho hum...look at how sad this thing was." Or at least make the main character seem sympathetic. She must really hate herself to portray her avatar (nominee name drop!) as a girl bored enough with her studies to run off with the first European dick she meets (interpret that how you will). Something I neglected to mention before: how dumb are her parents? That dude was slimy. If a way older dude is wooing your daughter he better be Sean frigging Connery (who I would probably date btw, he is the man). I suppose it filled 2009's "British movie no one really likes but we'll pretend to like it anyway" quota. And Carey Mulligan does a good job even though her character is crazy annoying. She was also a wise choice because she's pretty but she's not "Hollywood gorgeous" so you kind of believe her somewhat lower self-esteem. Which would account for her poor decisions...oh no...I'm making it make sense. I'm gonna stop now.

Easily the actual best picture of the year and truly one of the best of the decade and one of my favorites ever is Inglourious Basterds. I can't say enough about this film. It's truly extraordinary in many ways. Probably Tarantino's best film (and that means a non-sarcastic ton). In one sense it does for Nazis what Pulp Fiction does for gangsters. In another sense it somehow manages to adhere of the classic themes of every war film while simultaneously being unlike any other war film ever made. As I mentioned before, it features one of the best villain performances of all time with Christoph Waltz. Incredible performance. The opening scene of the picture so perfectly establishes the tone and especially his character that one wonders how the rest of the film lives up to it. Things to look out for are: the shot changing to denote the shift in the balance of power within the conversation, why and when Hans starts speaking a different language, and especially the fact that he chooses not to shoot Shoshanna as she runs away. Why is that? Some would say: plot device. That's true to an extent, but remember that Hans has been branded "the Jew Hunter." He takes great pride in his ability to figure out where Jews are hiding. He takes little to no pleasure in killing them. He's the Sherlock Holmes of the S.S.! You could argue that Sherlock just cares about solving puzzles and not really saving lives. The same way that Dr. House mostly cares about figuring out what an ailment is and not necessarily curing the patient. By letting Shoshanna go, he is giving himself another whole puzzle to solve. Have I mentioned Brad Pitt yet? I guess not. Only Tarantino can pull off making a Nazi the real star of a World War II piece. As I said before, the only real Nazi in the film is Brad Pitt. The actual Germans are portrayed as little more than patriots fighting for their country. Ruthless patriots to be sure. But their hatred of all things non-Aryan is portrayed in a much more toned down way. They passively dislike everyone else. This is far more realistic for lower-level soldiers and much more disturbing. Also disturbing is the idea that the only way to truly defeat them is to be worse than they are in some ways. The film shows us this not by shoving it in our face but by showing us through masterfully crafted scenes of dialogue. No one in the film is a hero, it's about rotten people killing more rotten people. And being both hilarious and profound while doing so. It is incredibly rare that a film comes along of this magnitude. I'd say it's ahead of its time but I don't think the rest of Hollywood will ever catch up to Tarantino.

A movie I surprisingly enjoyed is Precious: Based on the Novel "Push" by Sapphire. Don't let the fact that the title is a self-writing Seth MacFarlane joke fool you, it's actually quite good. I presumed it was a token Indie film with a kicker of being funded by Oprah and almost entirely cast with black people. So I had very few expectations going in. Thankfully, it's actually really good. It's not a "this takes place in the ghetto and thus must inevitably be about the disparity between the rich and the poor" movie. It doesn't show you a lot of terrible things and say "hey isn't this bad? Shame on you for not doing something about this." It's an intense drama with the ghetto as a backdrop. It allows its main character to delve into fantasies of a better life without overdoing it or becoming entertaining. And by that I mean: she's not going full-on Alice in Wonderland. That particular escape from reality is far more exciting than real life. But hers aren't entertaining, they're sad. She'll imagine herself as a movie star walking the red carpet and you begin to wonder that if she was born somewhere else, or to someone else, she might have achieved that dream. Notice that it doesn't have scene after scene of dialogue where someone articulates that, it's just apparent from what they're showing you. That's how it's done properly! The villains of the piece include her rapist and incestuous father and her positively evil mother. I said this before but it warrants re-mentioning: Mo-Nique gives an incredible performance in this movie and rightfully got the Oscar for Supporting Actress. To play such a terrible and awful mother and then completely humanize that character in the last few minutes of the film is really amazing. The film reminds us that real people can experience tragedies on a very personal level. Its heroes and villains carry all the drama and intrigue of a great Sci-Fi film. The battlefield is the streets of Harlem and in many ways the battle is for control of the main character's soul. Will she grow up to be like her mother or will she escape to a better world? The film leaves us with a truly uplifting and still realistic ending: that though she'll probably never achieve a better life for herself, she will fight for a better life for her children. No one is more surprised than me by this, but it's one of the year's top nominees.

A peculiar addition to the list is A Serious Man. If True Grit is the closest the Coens have come to a mainstream movie, this is probably the most hardcore and "Coen-y" of any of their movies (that I've seen). It is cynicism given physical form. In many ways it is a re-telling of the Biblical story of Job. And the story of Job is like candy for the eyes of cynics like me. So if you believe that the world and everything in it, and possibly everything outside of it, is devoted to making your life painful then this movie is for you. Or if you know one of us you will probably also enjoy it and roll your eyes. If you can envision a well-shot and well-written story about nothing that is also about everything, that's sort of what it's like. I should really watch it again sometime, and see if it's actually funny or if I was just in a particularly foul mood when I watched it. If I enjoy it even more this time then my psyche might be in trouble. The plot centers around a man going through a divorce, and blackmail, and inherent Jewish guilt, and the knowledge that his son probably inherited all the same bad luck. The opening scene of the film implies that one of his ancestors either A) had the same bad luck or B) accidentally committed an act which brought down bad luck on his descendants. This gives rise to the question: does the main character truly possess incredible misfortune or are we simply being shown a period in his life that was unusually sad? For all I know, his problems were solved a year later. Although since he has cancer at the end, probably not. Even so, that would make all of 1 bad year in the man's life. Was the rest of it so terrible? If not, then he actually led a nice life. But that's the problem with pessimism: you never can tell. Statistically, some people will experience more negative things in life than other people and we can perceive this as bad luck. Psychologically, many of those people will come to expect bad things. And whether the rest of their lives are taken up by "good luck" or not is irrelevant. Because their mindset has already been created. There are also some people who get nothing but crap in life but won a talent show once when they were young and thus remain optimists. But a movie about them would suck. My point is that the film raises many interesting questions and though I don't think the plot itself contains enough depth to warrant a nomination in a 5 nominee year, it's cool that it got one in this year.

One of Pixar's finest masterpieces is Up. Though its artistic significance isn't up to the same standard as the Toy Story films or either of Brad Bird's movies, hell if it doesn't surpass most of them with its heart alone. It's a very old-fashioned adventure in many ways. With a house floating on balloons and an adventurer-turned-villain who has an army of "talking" dogs you'll wonder if you stumbled into an unusually good looking 40s serial. Adding to this in many ways is Michael Giacchino's Oscar-winning and incredible musical score. It's so good that I actually can't listen to it. Because I'll start crying immediately. Above all, this was the CGI film to officially break the stigma of its genre. Can anyone really tell me that it's any less touching or dramatic or wonderful because it's made on a computer? CGI films remind us that it's the story that holds power, not the way it's being presented. Did Carl really go and do all of those things? Well, no. Because he isn't real. But how is that any more or less real than the usual selection of trickery in films? Not since the days of Rome when they executed criminals on stage for character death scenes has the drama been that real. And I'd rather not go back to it. I truly think that the realm of animation is the real future of filmmaking. It's all so much more coherent than a live action film. Instead of sitting there and going, "well that's real and that must be CG since dragons don't exist" you are fully aware that none of it exists and so you're caught up in the story immediately. In this particular case, you've got a great adventure and a heartwarming tale of a lonely old man and a lonely kid who make their lives mean something. Oh lordy, I need to stop writing soon I am literally tearing up as I write this. I'll also mention that the villain is humanized in a better way than most "real" movies achieve, especially considering the relatively small amount of time the film devotes to him. Okay, on to the next one before I transform into a little girl.

I'm far less enthusiastic about Up in the Air but not because I don't like it. The word I used before is "cute." The words I'd use with more retrospect would be "fairly cute." It's pretty much what my mother's friend Cliff would call "a big dumb grin movie." Sure, it's set against the backdrop of the economic crisis. But so is every other episode of every TV show since the crisis started. So it doesn't get points for broaching a subject that others wouldn't. It also feels kind of tacked on, since the film is really about one man's search for personal meaning. I have the same issue with it that I was just talking about with Alfie though. We barely get to see any of Clooney's character in his prime. I mean, we get to see it I guess. But not enough. There's also the whole plot with Vera Farmiga being his female equivalent and lover. And the story of Anna Kendrick being his (so adorable that it hurts) protegé. Oh and also the story of his sister's wedding. This would make a fine miniseries or perhaps full-on show. It could be a dark comedy along the lines of Arrested Development where everyone is nasty and yet somehow likeable. But as a movie it's kind of a charming mess. Clooney does one of his best George Clooney impersonations for the film, and it's great to see supporting performances from people like Jason Bateman and Zach Galifianakis. But in order for us to really feel bad for someone who is essentially better off than most people you need to have one coherent storyline. Since it's also a comedy it doesn't matter as much, but I feel like the comedy largely dies out about halfway through. Last time I compared it to Thank You For Smoking and I stand by that. In that film we see Aaron Eckhart be the badass of talkers, have a slight crisis, and then continue on still in his prime. Excellent. This movie does a lot of the same things but not quite as well. I certainly enjoyed it and I'd even watch it again if the opportunity arises. But I think it got a little over-hyped when it was out and as you well know: the irks me.

Thankfully the same can't be said for this year's deserving winner The Hurt Locker. And remember that, as always, "deserving" doesn't mean it's my top pick, just that I'm not opposed to it winning. I still remember when I saw a brief clip from it during The Colbert Report (still the best news show on television). I thought it was very suspenseful, even though they probably showed no more than 30 seconds or so. I wanted to see it, but it was only playing at "select" theaters and then I forgot about it. Then the inevitable "Oscar buzz" started up and I kind of groaned. I figured it was a blatantly political anti-war film that was only slightly more artistic than Michael Moore's drivel. Nothing worse than a chubby guy getting up and yelling at you in a very non-imaginative way. But this film isn't that at all. It doesn't have the theme of "the War in Iraq is bad" it has the theme of "all wars are bad." This plays so much better for many reasons. First: any sort of film that exists solely to push an opinion is no good, whether I agree with it or not. Second: someday when someone like me goes back and watches all the Oscar nominees (or just winners if they're not as hardcore) they're not going to know the current political landscape. But a personal story about a man who deals with war by becoming addicted to it is something entirely different. It's a legitimate comparison to not only our country but many countries before us. The idea that so many bad things have happened that we've all been so desensitized to the point of not realizing the effects of war. Actually, that's not quite true. I think we are addicted to conflict. Addicted to drama. If not addicted to the overwhelming drive to fight terrorism without thought, then instead addicted to the overwhelming drive to protest the fighting of terrorism without thought. No matter what one's opinions are in today's society, we all seem to be addicted to the feeling we get from harassing others with this opinion. I know this because I've perfected it and made it an art form. I understand that we need conflict to survive. Read my previous posts, which ones are the best? The ones where I'm gushing over the wonderful cinematography or the ones where I'm ferociously bashing a period piece? My favorites are always the latter. Because society loves its negativity. So when Jeremy Renner walks away from Evangeline Lilly at the end (single worst decision anyone could ever make) and right back to disarming bombs, is it really so different from millions of men and women walking away from their friends or their lovers to people who are more "exciting?" In that way, the film reminds us that nothing is good or bad all the time. War is bad but disarming bombs in war is good. But becoming addicted to the thrill of defusing bombs is bad. Maybe someday people will recognize what I've always known: making your everyday life an adventure is the key. That way you can have your security, with an added bonus of the occasional side quest.

Did you notice that I liked basically every film that came out this year? That's why I was so passionate about watching every other year. I was hoping to reciprocate the joy I got from watching 9 of the 10 movies listed above. If I had known what lay ahead I might not have been so excited. But I'm over HALFWAY done with the Oscars, year-wise. So by the end of the year, or at most by next year, I will stand above all other humans and say: "I have artistically wasted my time better than any of you." But for now I'll get back to the age of musicals with intermissions and sweeping scenery. So I'll see you in 1965, with the aforementioned Jews, Nazis, and Russians.