2009 Leaman Awards: Major Awards and Commentary

Here is the BIG STUFF! Thanks for reading and Enjoy!

Best Supporting Actress

- Vera Farmiga Up in the Air

- Mo'Nique Precious

- Gwyneth Paltrow Two Lovers

- Blanca Portillo Broken Embraces

- Rachel Weisz The Brothers Bloom

Winner: Mo'Nique Precious

Runner-Up: Blanca Portillo Broken Embraces

Comments: It wasn't never really a race this year as Mo'Nique walks away with the award. Easily the most 'evil' of the performances, Mo'Nique doesn't shy away from going over the top, and this pays off with her emotional plea in the final act of the film, revealing more character than most care to admit. The best antagonist since Ledger's Joker.

Best Supporting Actor

- Jason Bateman State of Play

- Jim Broadbent Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince

- Saul Rubinek Julia

- Mark Ruffalo The Brothers Bloom

- Christoph Waltz Inglorious Basterds

Winner: Jim Broadbent Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince

Runner-Up: Jason Bateman State of Play

Comments: Has there ever been a more interesting character in the Potter films than Professor Slughorn? Conflicted from the beginning, I absolutely delighted in Slughorn's struggle with his past failures mixed with his delight in helping and 'collecting' students. Slughorn is played with wit, charm, and potency by the always great Jim Broadbent. Slughorn's confession to Harry is my favorite moment of the whole series, as well as the best acted.

Best Actress

- Emily Blunt The Young Victoria

- Carey Mulligan An Education

- Tilda Swinton Julia

- Gabourey Sidibe Precious

- Meryl Streep Julie & Julia

Winner: Carey Mulligan An Education

Runner-Up: Tilda Swinton Julia

Comments: How refreshing and delightful to find this outstanding performance amongst a year filled with disappointments in the cinema! Equal parts innocent and naive, as well as sexy and adventurous; Carey Mulligan is the center of the entire film. Mulligan gives one of the best debuts of the decade, it just so happens it's one of the best female performances of the decade.

Best Actor

- George Clooney Up in the Air

- Russell Crowe State of Play

- Robert Downey Jr. Sherlock Holmes

- Viggo Mortensen The Road

- Sam Rockwell Moon

Winner: Sam Rockwell Moon

Runner-Up: Viggo Mortensen The Road

Comments: The best twin performance since Nicholas Cage in Adaptation (Rockwell is not quite as good), is also the best male performance of the year. Much of Rockwell's trademark quirkiness is reined in here as Rockwell gives a solid and greatly layered performance that just might be the highlight of his career.

Best Ensemble

- Inglorious Basterds

- Precious

- The Road

- Sherlock Holmes

- Up in the Air

Winner: Up in the Air

Runner-Up: Inglorious Basterds

Comments: This was a pretty easy choice for me this year as I truly enjoyed all the performances in this film. In fact, I think the film works (and works well) simply because its leads are so charming, charismatic, and agreeable. I think the films performances actually help to temper and balance out the stark purposelessness of universe of Up in the Air. If I return to the skies, It will be to simply watch Clooney, Farmiga, Kendick and Bateman, live out these characters, despite how the film ultimately uses them.. I don't know if I can say that about any other film this year.

Best Director

- John Hillcoat The Road

- Duncan Jones Moon

- Kevin MacDonald State of Play

- Guy Ritchie Sherlock Holmes

- Quentin Tarantino Inglorious Basterds

Winner: John Hillcoat The Road

Runner-Up: Kevin MacDonald State of Play

Comments: Adapting and bringing to the screen one America's great novels is not an easy task. Hillcoat confidently commands The Road creating the perfect tone and atmosphere that coarsens through every aspect of the film, including it's subtext and performances. Working with a fairly slim plot and stoyline, Hillcoat masterfully coaxes out every ounce of value.

Best Picture

5. Ip Man

4. Moon

3. Sherlock Holmes

2. The Road

1. State of Play

Comments: State of Play marks the first time I've ever given my Best Picture award to an 'A-' film (the only 'A' film of 2009). Despite these circumstances, State of Play is still a solid film that deserves recognition, so I'm glad to give it some. The plot is much too detailed to convey here, but its revelations are all earned, surprising, and truly engaging. Sandwiched in-between all the plot and mystery, are some great issues dealing with the privatization of homeland security (can I say again how much I enjoy the film's failure to confirm the easy scapegoat here?), the dying of print newspaper, and the question of fairness and accuracy in reporting.

The acting is excellent (Crowe, Bateman and Mirren especially) and all the production is memorable as well. All in all, this will be one film that I'll look forward to watching again and again in the future, much like A Few Good Men. It's a blast to watch, remember the twists and enjoy the performances.

2009: A Year in Review

"It Gets Worse Before It Gets Better"

I love watching movies. I devote nearly all of my spare time to watching them, thinking about them, writing about them, and sharing them with friends. Not every film turns out to be one worth devoting all that time to and unfortunately in 2009 that extended to the majority of films I saw. About halfway through the year, as I began to be disappointed by film after film, I suspected that it would be a tough year for me, but I never thought the year would end with only one 'A-'' film (and that took a second viewing for me to arrive at). This is the worst year in film dating all the way back to 1996 (and at least that year had Jerry Maguire and Scream in the 'A' range.). So what made the year so bad? Were there any bright spots in the whole thing? Lets take a closer look at the year.

Looking over the list of what I would label as 'disappointments', it's hard to remain positive about the year. The list of directors with prestige that turned in average to terrible films this year is simply astounding; Eastwood, Proyas, Jonze, Zemeckis (who hasn't made a great film since 2000's Cast Away), Cameron, Jackson (of the Peter vairety), Soderbergh, Linklater, Raimi, Gilliam, Coen Brothers, J.J. Abrams, Howard, Gilroy, Gervais, Marshall, Allen, and Ramis. All directors I look forward to and not a single one produced a film that I care to watch again. Alas, perhaps 2009 was missing those prestige dramas, but did it at least deliver my bread and butter genre? Did it succeed in prodcuing great blockbuster entertainment?

Looking over my grades for this year's blockbuster is like looking over the report card for a failing high school football player. The list of casualties include: Wolverine, Star Trek, G.I. Joe, Angels and Demons, Harry Potter 6, 2012, Watchmen, Terminator 4, Transformers 2, Night at the Museum 2, and Avatar. All of these failed to deliver the goods in my opinion failing to either deliver a fun and entertaining ride, or the rare blockbuster that is as deep as it is wide. Sherlock Holmes is this year's best blockbuster film, delivering everything a blockbuster should have while offering something deeper as well.

Two unlikely areas produced the best surprises of the year for me. Hong Kong/Asian cinema and animated films truly 'saved' the year from near disaster. While it's been a down year for American blockbusters, Chocolate, Ip Man, Red Cliff, Ong Bak 2 all represent the cutting edge for action films. What a relief. Not to mention the unusually great animated category. I thought that 2008 was going to be the 'down' year for the 2000's, but I guess sometimes it has to get worse before it gets better. Which, when you think about it, is a pretty fitting statement for 2009 in general. Bring on 2010!

- The Part-Time Critic: Kyle Leaman

2009 Movie Year: Reviews and Awards

Below you will find links to all the material I wrote for 2009 including grades, reviews, and awards. Hopefully this will help me to keep up with and catalogue the individual years as they pass by. This way I can clear the sidebar of all 2009 grades and reviews, while still giving you a place to find them all. Enjoy!

2009 Film Preview: (Written at the Beginning of the 2009)

- Part 1
- Part 2

2009 Leaman Awards:

- Top Ten List and Beyond

- Major Awards and Commentary

- Technical & Minor Awards with Commentary

- Supplementary Awards

- Superlative Awards

- Top 25 Quotes of 2009

Film Grades and Reviews:

(500) Days of Summer (C+)
12 Rounds (B-)
17 Again (B)
2012 (C)
Adventureland (B)
Angels & Demons (C+)

Anvil: The Story of Anvil (B)

Armored: (C+)
Avatar (C+)
Avatar - A Second Look
Avatar Review Roundup
Away We Go (B)
Blind Side, The (B)
Blood: The Last Vampire (C+)
Brothers Bloom,, The (B)
Bruno (C+)
Chandni Chowk to China (D+)
Chocolate (C+)
Christmas Carol, A (B-)

Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs (B+)
Coraline (B+)
Crank: High Voltage (B-)
District 9 (C)
Drag Me To Hell (C-)
Dragonball: Evolution (C-)
Duplicity (B-)
Education, An (B)

Extract (C)
Fantastic Mr. Fox (B)
Fast & Furious (B)
Food, Inc. (D+)
Friday the 13th (D+)
Funny People (B)
G.I. Joe: The Rise of Cobra (C+)
Goods, The: Live Hard, Sell Hard (B-)
Hangover, The (C-)
Hannah Montana: The Movie (C-)
Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince (C+)
He's Just Not That Into You (B-)
Hurt Locker, The (B)
I Love You, Man (C+)
Ice Age: Dawn of the Dinosaurs (B)
Informant, The (C+)
Inglorious Basterds (B)
Inkheart (C)
International, The (B)
Invention of Lying, The (C-)

Invictus (B)
Ip Man (B+)
It Might Get Loud (B-)
It's Complicated (C)
Julia (C+)
Julie & Julia (C-)
Knowing (B)
Land of the Lost (B-)

Lovely Bones, The (C-)
Me and Orson Welles (C)
Monsters vs. Aliens (C)

Moon (B+)

Mutant Chronicles (C)
Night at the Museum 2 (C-)
Nine (C-)
Ninja Assasin (C)
Observe and Report (C)
Ong Bak 2 (B-)
Paranormal Activity (C+)
Paul Blart: Mall Cop (C)
Pink Panther 2, The (B-)
Precious (B)
Princess and the Frog, The (B)
Proposal, The (B-)
Public Enemies (B)
Push (C-)
Race to Witch Mountain, The (C+)
Red Cliff (B+)

Road, The (B+)
Rudo y Cursi (C)
Saw VI (B)
Serious Man, A (B-)
Sherlock Holmes (B+)
Sherlock Holmes Review Roundup
Star Trek (B-)
State of Play (A-)
Street Fighter: The Legend of Chun-Li (D+)
Sugar (C+)
Surrogates (C+)
Taken (B)
Taking of Pelham 123, The (B)
Terminator Salvation (C)
This Is It (B-)
Tournament, The (B)
Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen (C-)
Twilight Saga: New Moon (C-)
Two Lovers (B-)
Underworld: Rise of the Lycans (C+)
Up (B)
Up in the Air (B)
Watchmen (C+)
Whatever Works (C-)
Where the Wild Things Are (B)
X-Men Origins: Wolverine (C-)
Year One, The (D+)

Young Victoria, The (B+)
Zombieland (B-)

Avatar - A Second Look

Because I am young and I have plenty of time and money to just throw away, I decided to drop the cash, don the glasses and view Avatar a second time. There is some big dumb part of me that desires to give films a second chance and with all of the financial and critical success that Avatar is recieving, I thought it would be worth it to give myself a second viewing a few weeks after my initial endeavor.

I've done this project a few times in the past, most notably with Pirates of the Caribbean: Curse of the Black Pearl (I fell asleep both times in it), Iron Man, and Star Trek, and unfortunately a second viewing just confirmed my initial feelings. However, I recently re-viewed State of Play on DVD and was surprised by just how much I loved it. It changed my opinion so much that it was bumped from a 'B' to an 'A-'. It put me in a charitable mood and I decided to extend my newfound grace and mercy to a film that was quickly becoming one of the more overrated films in pop culture. Below are my thoughts after the second viewing including some comments on things that I didn't get to in my first review, which can be found here

- All of my original thoughts on the storyline and character motivations were confirmed and deepened. Jake's motivations for switching sides and joining the Na'vi are simply too selfish. They are not explicitly selfish, but it's clear he enjoys this better body, the natural lifestyle, the new girlfriend, the rites of passage, flying through the air; and it overpowers any message about helping the Na'vi because it's the right thing to do. Instead of, "What your doing is wrong and their lives are sacred", it becomes, "What your doing is wrong, these people and there way of life are awesome!"

- It doesn't help that he Na'vi are simply too noble and too innocent over and against the greedy imperialistic American mercenaries. Jakes' Na'vi experience is spared all the normal trappings that come with overtly theocratic societies. The rituals (the chanting and convulsing circle) that in any other film would be looked upon as naive and dumb, are looked upon as cultural and in tune with nature in this film. The native religion they espouse would be laughed off the screen in most any other film, but is given a noble reality and scientific support.

- Jake is attacked by a pack of wild dog like animals who will literally kill him, a giant flying bird that attempts to kill him, yet there Jake accepts a reverence for nature because he ends up not getting hurt. I'd like to see how nature appealed to Jake if one of the beasts took his Avatar legs, then we'd see how well he warmed up to the new worldview.

- Sam Worthington is terrible for me as the lead here; he's neither a bad actor, nor a good actor, he just is. He's about the most bland lead character I can think of in a successful science fiction or fantasy picture. I honestly don't care for him, don't care for his character arc, and don't care much that he becomes a warrior by the end. Nothing attached to him works for me. It doesn't help me that he's made to mumble through tons of voice-over, barely registering much emotion other than, 'blah'. For whatever people thought of DiCaprio in Titanic, he was at least charismatic.

- Jake Sully's taming of his flying 'dragon' (I don't know what to call it), really is the best sequence of the film and is quite possibly one of the best sequences in all of 2009. It's the best example of all the positives of the film in one place. The visuals are at their most astonishing, the depth of 3-D is at it's greatest, and it's an experience that no one has ever really seen before on film. The music, sound design, film composition, pacing, writing, work perfectly to present a pretty darn riveting and captivating sequence.

- More impressed this go round with the 3-D and the special effects. While I enjoyed them both more and think that some sequences truly reach the 'photo realistic' stage, do people really think this is a 'revolutionary' step forward? Did they forget Return of the King, the Star Wars prequels (whose landscapes are just a step down from this), or even Davey Jones of Pirates of the Caribbean?

- The sound design is quite spectacular for this film. Nailed me to my seat a couple of times (especially the fall of hometree) and was exemplary in the taming your dragon sequence reference above. The score works and works very well, but certain musical cues reminded me of Titanic, I don't know why Horner or Cameron would allow those similarities.

- I really don't get the whole ground army strike in the last battle sequence. They don't explain too well where they drop off and exactly why they need a ground force to begin with. Why exactly have a large ground force right in the vicinity of the area your dropping a motherload of bombs? If anything, the army drew out the ground forces of the Na'vi away from where the bombs would strike. The claustrophobia of the jungle also gives the entire sequence a 'could be anywhere' feel and notches down the epic nature of the film in general.

- The final aerial battle was much better than I gave it credit for. Beautiful to watch, and filled with some good brutal action beats. I do wish it was held for a bit longer and included some more characters I cared about.

- The political commentary bugged me a bit more the second time around as it was a bit more blunt and apparent (and moronic) than the first time I saw it.

- I found myself bothered a bit more by the appearance of the Avatars than the first viewing. The faces of Jake, Grace and the other nerdy Avatar feel a bit cartoonish (since we see their human likeness as well), especially against the 'photo realistic' backdrops.

- 'I See You' is Cameron's attempt at a second 'Don't Let Go' catchphrase. It's worse, much worse, and it makes me cringe each time they say it.

- Overall, I would say I found myself more wrapped up in the film than the first viewing. That's good and bad for the film. The good points (visuals, 3-D, and action) were better this time out, and the weak points (story, characters, motivations, subtext) were more aggravating this time out.

- I honestly wonder what will be remembered about this film in the future. I don't think people will remember Jake or his girlfriend, or the villain either. I don't think people will dress as the Na'vi or desire to be one of the mercenary grunts. I honestly think the thing what will stick the most is the dragon flying and the visuals of Pandora. In other words, it will be special effects. I have no axe to grind so I have no stake in what Avatar's lasting impact on culture will be, but I honestly think that despite the big box office take, and several attempts to define Avatar as a movie that stands as a story more than f/x, this one just won't be remembered as a great story. Who knows, I could be wrong. Maybe that will require a third endeavor into the cinema.

My Favorite Review of 2009

A long time ago, in the summer of 2009 (boy that seems forever ago doesn't it), Terminator: Salvation came out, and I was actually pretty stoked for it. Despite people's claims to the latter, I kinda enjoyed the director's previous outings (McG directed Charlie's Angel's and Charlie's Angel's" Full Throttle), have always enjoyed Christian Bale, and really enjoyed the trailer. Well, the film premiered and we all were rightfully not impressed. Probably the best thing to come out of the whole mess (besides the mid-film action sequence), was this hilarious review from Walter Chaw of FilmFreakCentral.net. Below is my favorite excerpt and I've linked to the whole review. Enjoy. (Keep in mind, this reviewer does use some vulgar language)

Excerpt: "The movie pretends that it's about discovering that which separates humans from machines--an idea of "functional equivalence," if you will, that Duncan Jones does a much better job with in his zero-budget Moon than McG does with in his small-country-GDP-budget Terminator Salvation. But what it's really about is blowing stuff up real good for two hours. A tanker blows, a gas station blows, a field of satellite towers blows, a hole blows, and, accordingly, the movie blows."

http://www.filmfreakcentral.net/dvdreviews/terminator4.htm

As a bonus, here is an excerpt from Roger Ebert's review of Transformers 2

Excerpt: "Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen is a horrible experience of unbearable length, briefly punctuated by three or four amusing moments. One of these involves a dog-like robot humping the leg of the heroine. Such are the meager joys. If you want to save yourself the ticket price, go into the kitchen, cue up a male choir singing the music of hell, and get a kid to start banging pots and pans together. Then close your eyes and use your imagination."

http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20090623/REVIEWS/906239997

Up in the Air Review - Sort of

Overall Grade: B

Due to a complete lack of time (and subsequent sleep) I'm not able to do a traditional review of the film. So, to fill in I thought I'd just give you the bullet points of what my review would've been anyways. Feel free to comment.

- George Clooney gives a great and nuanced performance, even if it could be said that he is just 'playing' George Clooney. Vera Farmiga and Anna Kendrick give great performances as well.

- The film is very enjoyable to watch and plays out very well. It looks good and is superbly edited.

- I've always personally enjoyed flying and 'hotel' culture. It is a bit fun as a vicarious fantasy to live out what that would be like.

- There is a decent message about our connections with others being the best parts of our lives, in the end meaning the most to us.

- There is also a nasty and cruel existential listless to the universe of Up in the Air that undercuts the 'sentimental' family and spouse message mentioned earlier.

- The existential underpinnings of the film reveal the film's ultimate message, life is limbo. Our job (like Clooney's in firing people) is to make limbo livable. To do so, we should be alone, together, or whatever gets us by.

- The desire for an honest existentialism should be commended though in that it's careful to not over-romantice Clooney's solitude or Clooney's future in marriage, but show that both directions will hurt you and let you down. There's ultimately no point, no purpose, and no destination. Like Clooney's 'miles', our lives are just a meaningless in the end.

- Most film critics COMPLETELY miss this undercurrent of nasty hopelessness, many claiming it's a heartwarming tale full of humanity (which comprises a small part of it).

- The film has practically nothing to offer as a critique of our economic times, most critics have no idea what they are saying when they claim this.

- George Clooney looks pimp in a suit.

- Despite the nasty existentialistic worldview, I still enjoyed the movie and was able to glean some interesting insights.

- It's a worth a watch, if not for George Clooney being George Clooney...and looking pimp in a suit.

Sherlock Holmes Review Roundup

One of the things that I enjoy most about films is their ability to produce multiple interpretations and viewpoints. Some of those points I agree with and many of them I don't. However, I feel that by opening myself up to them I gain a broader and deeper perspective than the one I had before.

It is with that in mind that I am attempting a new feature where I roundup several reviews of a recent film, in order to gain a broader perspective beyond my review. Some of the reviews will be negative and some positive, but they all will be ones that I thought brought something interesting to the party.

With Sherlock Holmes, it seems as though there is great divide on the portrayal of Holmes himself. While most everyone agrees that Downey performs the role brilliantly, the biggest complaints come from those who disagree with the 'hyperactive' and 'witty' portrayal, as opposed to the stately and studious Holmes of tradition. Below is a roundup of reviews that all speak to their view on Holmes portrayal. Enjoy and feel free to share your thoughts.

Kyle Smith of the New York Post: Typically we agree on films, but this conservative writer feels Ritchie’s touch sinks the whole film
http://tinyurl.com/ye4w5lt

Excerpt: “Who the deuce decided to filter Sherlock Holmes through “Batman & Robin”? “Sherlock Holmes” dumbs down a century-old synonym for intelligence with S&M gags, witless sarcasm, murky bombast and twirling action-hero moves that belong in a ninja flick. Directed to do frantic American-buddy-movie shtick by Guy Ritchie, who has never before ruled a big-budget production, the normally brainy Robert Downey Jr. and Jude Law compete rather than complement, each spewing his deductions like “Rain Man” meets “Good Will Hunting” instead of leading the audience through the elegant process of solving a mystery. Somebodytellthesedirectorsthattalkingfastdoesnotmakeyousoundsmart.”

Steven Rea of the Philadelphia Inquirer: Negative review that laments on the lack of ‘soul’ within this modern Sherlock
http://tinyurl.com/yeuv98d

Excerpt: “I'm all for Sherlock as a man of intense agility. Indeed, so was Conan Doyle, who described his cunning and eccentric sleuth as an ace bare-knuckle fighter who once dispatched his arch nemesis, Moriarty, in a flurry of martial arts. But Ritchie, mega-producer Joel Silver, and their (many) writers have left out an essential element: soul. Downey, who appears to have boned up on his Brit-speak by reviewing the collected works of Jeremy Irons (dry, deadpan, a little debauched), plays Holmes as a bipolar type (up when he's on a case, down when he's not) whose ability to size people up by use of deductive powers is reduced to nothing more than gimmickry.”

Walter Chaw of Film Freak Central: Positive and well articulated. I wish I could write like this guy - http://tinyurl.com/yd6y3ku
**Warning, he uses profanity in his review, and I have somewhat cleaned up the excerpt below

Excerpt: “As Holmes is long one of my favorite literary characters, I confess to being filled with something very much like delight by a picture that has the sense to know that Holmes is one sexy guy--a rock star who does drugs, seduces chicks with his prodigious (and unique) talents, wins fights, and spits at police. He's a Dickensian Batman, and if Ritchie did indeed use Nolan's redux as a template, he couldn't have chosen a cannier one.”

Bill Goodykoontz of the Arizona Republic: A strongly positive review
http://tinyurl.com/ycjbtzg

Excerpt: “Turns out there was no need to worry. Playing literature's greatest detective as a sort of self-loathing action hero, Downey has an absolute blast. And thanks to his performance in "Sherlock Holmes," so do we. Mind you, those who are put off by a depiction of Holmes as the sort of fellow who indulges in underground bare-knuckle boxing (he thinks that through as much as he does anything else) will have much to be put off by. Although this may be closer to Arthur Conan Doyle's original depiction of Holmes, audiences used to Basil Rathbone-like portrayals will be jarred. This is a rock-and-roll Holmes without the attendant music. In director Guy Ritchie's telling, Holmes still is off-the-charts brilliant. He's just a butt-kicker to boot.”

The Part-Time Critic: My mostly positive review -http://parttimecritic.blogspot.com/2009/12/sherlock-holmes-review.html

Excerpt: “The center of the film is the incredible performance of Robert Downey Jr. as Sherlock Holmes. Downey gives the most enjoyable and nuanced performance of a blockbuster hero since Depps’ Captain Jack Sparrow first waded upon shore…Despite his incredible skill and wit, Holmes is a fighter, gambler, and depressed addict that is generally unlikable when he’s not ‘on the case’…He is enjoyable here because the film makes no apologies for his character and isn’t afraid at showing the loneliness that stems from it…As entertaining as his deducing and fighting is, I find myself even more interested in how Holmes develops and overcomes his obvious flaws.”

Sherlock Holmes Review

Overall Grade: B+

The most entertaining blockbuster of the year arrives in theatres five days before the year ends (Somewhat salvaging an otherwise dismal year for mainstream films). Modernized and re-envisioned, I was suspect of this film from the first few pictures they released of it. To my surprise, this is a muscular retelling of Holmes that is part Scooby Doo (I’ll explain), part The Prestige, and part Lethal Weapon, all filtered through the masculine vision of Guy Ritchie. Despite falling into a couple setbacks, Sherlock Holmes attains that rare status for a blockbuster film; pleasure for the mind, pleasure for the eyes, and no guilt the morning after.

The center of the film is the incredible performance of Robert Downey Jr. as Sherlock Holmes. Downey gives the most enjoyable and nuanced performance of a blockbuster hero since Depps’ Captain Jack Sparrow first waded upon shore. Forget Iron Man’s Tony Stark, Holmes is the jerk to love and root for. Despite his incredible skill and wit, Holmes is a fighter, gambler, and depressed addict that is generally unlikable when he’s not ‘on the case’. So what makes him enjoyable?

He is enjoyable here because the film makes no apologies for his character and isn’t afraid at showing the loneliness that stems from it. See a scene in which Holmes deduces some rather hurtful information about Watson’s fiancé, hurting her feelings and causing her to leave. A lesser film would’ve made her the object of laughter, a stuck up prude exposed by our hero. Here she’s appropriately the victim and we see the ‘warts and all’ side of Holmes. As entertaining as his deducing and fighting is, I find myself even more interested in how Holmes develops and overcomes his obvious flaws.

Downey is matched by Jude Law as Watson. Like Lethal Weapons’ Murtaugh and Riggs, both Holmes and Watson are up for a fight. Just like Glover’s Murtaugh, Law’s Watson provides the balancing effect with a call for Holmes to settle in and civilize. They are a fun match and like Lethal Weapon, the script really allows them to play off one another and run wild in their respective environments.

That environment is an interesting amalgam of a Scooby Doo (“that wasn’t a ghost, just a projector”) storyline set in the grimy London of The Prestige. Pairing a ‘supernatural vs. natural’ storyline with coming of industrial age London feels inspired within a Sherlock Holmes film that is all about reason, logic, and deduction. Like The Prestige, the pairings ask inherent questions about how a world of religion, mystery and the supernatural will exist in a world of widening scientific explanation, logic, and mechanization. It’s there to glean, but Sherlock Holmes unfortunately doesn’t delve too deep in that pool, whereas The Prestige gleans great wisdom from the tragic intersections of magic, the supernatural, science, and man's nature.

Here of course, Holmes’ deduction is infallible and victorious, but I wonder if the sequels will explore the limits to such an approach. Over reliance on deductions made about little details, while they make for fun banter and revelations, are not fool proof and require much faith in its methods. One last note I’d like to make about the science vs. faith/religion subtext in the film, but it will involve some details you might not want to read. If so, just skip the next paragraph two paragraphs.

SPOILER ALERT

A note should be made here that it’s possible for people to read an anti-religious and anti-Christian bent to this film. In fact, by the end of the film, Holmes has explained away the supernatural resurrection of a religious figure that then makes appearances to his followers (who drink a cup to pledge their allegiance) and to outsiders, doing supernatural ‘miracles’. This figure and his followers were then going to use this supernatural power to strike fear in to the hearts of the masses to control them. A cynic, or someone with half a brain, can make the connection to Jesus Christ and the claims made about his followers.

While it’s possible the writers intended it this way, it doesn’t alarm me, nor bother me in the least, and I hope it doesn’t for you. While it’s possibly a more direct and damaging attack on religion than any messages about ‘humans’ found in Avatar; it’s also infinitely more intelligent and honest. There are no one-sided caricatured Christians here nor are there any obvious and on the nose quotes made to draw direct parallels with Jesus or religious leaders (“fight terror with terror” and “shock and awe” are achingly bad from Avatar). In fact, when asked by Watson early in the film that Lord Blackwood’s resurrection could have a supernatural explanation, Holmes responds that it is possible; just that they shouldn’t buy it until all the facts have been discovered. What a refreshing viewpoint for a major Hollywood film.

END SPOILERS

Also refreshing is that we are allowed to watch a blockbuster without having to filter it through the eyes of a ‘Shia Lebouf’ like teenager. Essentially, these are adults taking on adult tasks in an adult world. The banter is primarily intelligent, the action brutal (Ritchie shoots ‘fights’ in much the same fashion as he did in Snatch), and the storyline rich in subtext. That’s not to say it didn’t have its faults. I’ll say a small word about those now.

In an otherwise perfect cast, Rachel McAdams is ill-placed and ill developed. Besides moving a plot forward and adding some weakness to Holmes himself (two admittedly important jobs), McAdams fizzles next to Downey and Law. Saddled with playing American (New Jersey to boot!), her accent and role just fall flat. Sherlock Holmes also suffers from a predictable and routine middle section with Holmes exploring and then subsequently being rescued by a ‘just behind’ police force. Included is a ‘heroine in distress’ action sequence in a slaughterhouse that comes straight out of a 'what might’ve been' version of this film. Thankfully, that version is unseen the rest of the film.

Sherlock Holmes is a solid blockbuster that falters a bit in the middle, but is nonetheless is as refreshing and entertaining as anything put out by the major studios all year. When was the last time that you could say a Hollywood blockbuster was seemingly made for adults with adults themes and stars, entertains in spades, and yet is suitable for almost the whole family? The true test about the success of this film and it's re-envisioned world is whether or not I’d want to see anymore of it. To that question I answer with an easy "Yes". A great foundation has been laid here, and I’m excited to see what adversaries and mysteries lay in store next for these characters. As Holmes himself might say, “The game is afoot”.

Avatar Review Roundup

Avatar is quite the 'Event' film of December and it has sparked a whole wide range of reviews and critiques. I've collected a few of my favorite reviews on the film, good ones and bad ones, and assembled them here for you. Enjoy.

Decent Film Guide: Positive review from a Christian perspective- a good counterpoint to my review - http://tinyurl.com/yewxlv7

Excerpt: "Deep down, Avatar is bone-headed, but it’s also beautiful — not just exciting and technically impressive, like Jurassic Park, but wondrous and exhilarating. How many movies can you say that about? It may be an inch deep, but it’s a mile wide, it gushes and roars like Niagara Falls, and it’s a sight to behold."


Scott Mendelson: Positive review from one of my favorite film writers - http://tinyurl.com/yg358kt

Excerpt: "...Avatar is a stunning success. It is a staggering achievement in visual effects and 3D technology. More importantly, it is a well-acted drama and a rousing action-adventure picture. It absolutely demands to be seen on the biggest and best screen available. See it in 3D, see it in IMAX 3D. Heck, see it a second time in 2D (the aspect ratio is 2.35:1 for 2D and Real3D and 1.87:1 for IMAX 3D prints). Point being, the self-appointed king of the world is back, and he may just reclaim his crown. Avatar absolutely delivers."

Film Freak Central: A negative review from Walter Chaw, one of my favorite reviewers. Caution, his reviews do use a bit of foul language - http://tinyurl.com/yewt59o

Excerpt: "A morally, historically, socially, and politically childish amalgam of Pocahontas and Ferngully: The Last Rainforest, Avatar finds James Cameron--still the Cameron of Titanic (or the uncomfortably simpering T2, if we're honest with ourselves) rather than the Cameron of Aliens and The Terminator--trying his hand at being Kevin Costner: powerful, dim, and only relevant for a tiny window of time he doesn't realize has already closed."

Part-Time Critic: This is my original mostly negative review - http://tinyurl.com/yamnmsx

Excerpt: "All in all, Avatar is truly a 'Must Go' theatre experience for moviegoers. Cameron has genuinely captured what it's like to be in another world, creating astonishing visuals that will 'wow' you and giving you visceral experiences (taming your own flying dragon like creature) that will thrill you. Unfortunately, it's the heavy focus on the 'experience' of Pandora, the Navi, and their spiritual world, that ultimately undermines the films dramatic honesty and thematic integrity, turning characters and themes one-sided."

Avatar Review

Overall Grade: C+

It's taken me a couple of days to write my thoughts on Avatar, not because I find myself still mixed in thought, but because I'm still surprised at the unorthodox and odd journey the main character takes throughout the film. My attempt here will be to fairly convey my feelings about Avatar and it should be noted up front that it will contain spoilers about the plot and themes of the film. I cannot honestly review the film without delving into particulars, so if you wish to remain spoiler free then this review isn't for you. With that said, also note that I don't hold any grudge for this film (I really enjoy Cameron's films), but do feel there were some serious faults I'd like to share with everyone.

Avatar plays out like a futuristic retelling of Pocahontas, with the planet of Pandora substituting for the 'Indian World', the big blue Navi people subbing for Indians, and Jake Sully (Sam Worthington) and Neytiri (Zoe Saldana) replacing John Smith and Pocahontas respectively. I must admit up front that I'm not the biggest fan of the Pocahontas story, so I knew this film had an uphill battle in front of it.

Anyone who has studied the Pocahontas story or even briefly surveyed America's historical relationship with Native Americans knows that it is an often brutal and cruel one. Truly, it's a dark period of American history where many regrettable actions were taken and one that we should always be taught and reminded of. As Avatar began to unfold I felt it heading in this direction (indeed the structure of that story is there) and I think it would've fit perfectly within the film. However, Cameron takes Avatar into unexpected territory, one that shifts it away from the lessons of Pocahontas and American history (or for that matter World history). Cameron infuses the entire story with an peculiarly odd mother earth like spirituality that alters the themes of the film and invalidates all social or political commentary. Let me explain further.

In Pocohontas and stories like it, we've always learned about their nature focused worldviews; how there were Gods in the waters and in the skies, how there was a practical balance to living with nature and that we should respect the spirits that had the power to give or to take away. While we've always watched and listened to this belief with interested ears, we've never actually believed that it was a true worldview. Sure, we found compromises between our worldviews and theirs, but we never accepted that Gods were in the water and air. While we are willing today to listen to the values of sustainability and efficiency, we certainly don't then accept their Gods as well.

It's important to note because when it is argued that the Indians should be treated with kindness, compassion and equality it wasn't because we were afraid of their Gods, or because we would lose insight into a spiritual world we knew little about, or because they were just better stewards of the land; it was because they had worth and value as human beings. Sustainability, efficiency, and respect of nature were always important principles we've learned in our relationship with the Indians, but the overriding one has been compassion and equality. It's the overriding lessons from slavery and holocaust as well.

Avatar doesn't leave the spiritual nature of our Navi people mystical and interesting, like our relationship with Indians has been in history, but cements it as a biological and scientific fact. The Navi commune and interact with animals through a symbiotic like connection as well as with Eyra, the mother earth like God. In fact, Eyra herself plays a large role in deciding the final epic battle (in classic dues ex machina fashion).

It is this spiritual realism that plays a deciding factor in converting Jake Sully into changing sides; joining with the Navi and attacking the humans. Sully experiences the world and worldview of the Navi so vividly that he's accepted into their group and eventually see's the reality of Eyra. I mentioned in the beginning that this is unorthodox, because it's a completely unrelatable motivation for character transformation, not to mention misguided and small minded.

It's unrelatable because we don't experience similar changes in our world. Would you relate to an Oscar Schindler who finally decided to help save Jews because Itzhak Stern laid hands on him and the Hebrew God told him that the Germans were destroying the world he created? No. Oscar slowly transforms and discovers the worth and value of human life, no matter if it be Jew or German through his interactions with them and experiencing their humanity. This is something all people can relate to.

It's misguided because it misses the bigger tragedy. By focusing so much on the 'experience' of being Navi, of the 'experience' of living in the spiritual world of Pandora, Jake Sully's motivations for turning against the Americans, transform into "their way of life is better than our way of life". When a film is essentially about genocide, it's misguided to let your main moral message be, "Our way of life is better than your way of life". It becomes a war sprung out of issues, rather than what it should be, a war sprung out of injustice and inhumanity.

It's small minded because Jakes conversion essentially becomes selfish, rather than selfless. Where is the inspiration to sacrifice for the injustice? Where is the righteous anger to try and convince the humans what they are doing is wrong? Instead, by focusing again on Jakes 'experiences' both physical and spiritual, his conversion seems more about not wanting to lose the use of his legs, bed the girl, and be one with nature. I have a hard time imagining myself cheering on Leigh Anne Tuohy of The Blind Side if she actually was taking Michael Oher in so that she could experience more happiness by Ole Miss gaining a great football player. This is essentially what Avatar does.

I don't mind spiritual aspects and messages in films, but I feel that the way in which Cameron has incorporated it into Avatar, has rendered his characters and themes unrelatable, misguided, and small-minded. It is a shame because the story is supported by incredible special effects the likes of which we've never seen...well...the likes of which we rarely see...this much of in one movie. While Avatar contains the most photorealistic CG imagery to date (it should and will win the Oscar for visual effects), the hype about it being leagues different than anything else is over exaggerated. While Avatar looks better, it's not that much better than what can be found in something like Star Wars Episode III (which came out over four years ago).

The final action sequence is appropriately epic, but failed to work for me. If I'm honest, the central journey Jake Sully takes in this film so completely alienated me (no pun intended) from the emotion and experience of the film that I just wasn't 'feeling' it. On technical points though, it's a very good sequence.

All in all, Avatar is truly a 'Must Go' theatre experience for moviegoers. Cameron has genuinely captured what it's like to be in another world, creating astonishing visuals that will 'wow' you and giving you visceral experiences (taming your own flying dragon like creature) that will thrill you. Unfortunately, it's the heavy focus on the 'experience' of Pandora, the Navi, and their spiritual world, that ultimately undermines the films dramatic honesty and thematic integrity, turning characters and themes one-sided. I joked with a friend about this, but the more I think about it the more it seems to fit. For as high-minded as it tries to be, Avatar ultimately becomes a retelling of Independence Day with us as the alien invaders looking to mine another planet. Okay, okay, that was a little rough; Avatar does have better effects.

Hannah Montana the Movie: Review

Overall Grade: C-

Believe it or not, I am a Hannah Montana fan. Along with several others on the Disney channel lineup, there are some simple pleasures to be found in their shows. While its true they can be saccharine, simple and pandering; they also can feature some truly charismatic comedic actors. Say what you want, Disney knows how to locate kids with talent, and the Hannah Montana show is loaded with it. While the writing is clearly aimed at kids, the show features some great chemistry and comraderie between the young leads and it truly is fun to watch people enjoy themselves in a show (The same can be said of the cast for Friends or Seinfeld).

All of that sympathy applies to the television show because the movie is nearly completely devoid of anything resembling a good time. Gone from the story are the simple comedic gags, the chemistry between Miley and Lilly, the competition between Rico and Jackson, and the pure enjoyment of life that makes the show so enjoyable. The closest the film comes to the unabashed enjoyment of the show is a credit reel set to the "Hoedown Throwdown". So in the place of the shows best features comes a message so preachy and wrong-minded that it boggles my mind to think of what the writers were attempting to achieve.

Just like in Sweet Home Alabama, "City folk" are skewed caricatures while the "country folk" are wise sages with all the essential knowledge to a satisfied life. If the caricature wasn't enough, an evil Mall Developer is thrown in, without ever explaining what exactly about a Macy's department store corrupts the soul. What makes the whole thing disengenious is that the whole Hannah Montana 'branding' (that includes sold out concerts, DVD sets, lines of clothes, as well as just about anything they can slap a logo on) is the antithesis of the film's message. To top it off, the whole film looks like an Abercrombie and Fitch shoot. It works for the TV show, but when the whole message is about returning to simple roots and traditional values, it would help if the film wasn't shot with Michael Bay's camera at a New York Fashion show. There are some truly wrong headed choices here, including some awful slow motion shots in a couple moments that reminded me of diamond commercials...and nothing says a traditional country values like a diamond commercial.

Of course all of this would be forgiveable if the movie was any good, but it isn't. So, even from someone who can enjoy the television show, I don't think that the film c works on any level it needs to. It's a shame, Miley Cyrus really does have some charisma and comedic talent, but the film does everything it can to hide it. Dare I say that Miley Cyrus is better than this material (never thought I would say that). Crossing over from the television world to the film world is a tough thing to do, and its sad to say that we really don't get the best of both worlds.

Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen Review

Overall Grade: C-

Reviewing a film is a tricky art and a movie like Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen (from here on referred to as Transformers 2) only magnifies that difficulty. On the one hand, I thought the film was idiotic, boring, and condescending. On the other hand, Transformers 2 presents its own clearly drawn cinematic world along with a directorial vision with the same scope and magisterium of an Alfred Hitchcock, Stanley Kubrick, or even a Steven Spielberg. Like Hitchcock, Kubrick, and Spielberg, Michael Bay filters every aspect of Transformers 2 through his particular worldview, his cinematic lens. The difference being that the aforementioned directors had worldviews that aspired to understand, explore, and learn about humanity and its range of experience; Michael Bay has the worldview of a horny teenage boy in arrested development given over to all his indulgences. I guess the question is, do you want to spend two and a half hours looking through those eyes?

The cinematic vision of Michael Bay has always been prevalent in his earlier films, but they seemed to have found some kind of balance to become bearable. In 1996's The Rock we got a heaping dose of Michael Bay's swooshing, twirling camera and his heavily stylized lighting, but the great interplay between Sean Connery, Nicholas Cage, and Ed Harris seemed to balance the film out. 1998's Armageddon displayed for us Bay's penchant for epic destruction (he takes out Paris with an asteroid, in Transformers 2 he returns with a destrucive Decepticon landing), loud bangs, and juvenile humor. Thankfully, that film also found a little balance in a grounded Bruce Willis as well as decently plotted script. By the time 2003's Bad Boys II rolled around, Bay's vision was firmly in place. Thankfully, the first Transformers was tempered by a fairly simple plotline (a young teenage boy gets his first car and tries to score the girl) that Bay was able to fill in with his own style. However, either due to the sucess of the first film or the convuluted script of the second film, Bay seems to have let himself completely loose in Transformers 2.

In what may have been bearable for an hour and a half, entering into Bay's cinematic world for two and a half hours was an exhausting and uncomfortable experience...in the bad way. (Munich by Steven Spielberg is an exhausting and uncomfortable experience in a good way). Rather than entertained and amazed, I felt pounded into submission by a juvenile worldview. For that is exactly how juveniles try and get across their views, with loud and base arguments rather than engagement and discussion.

Everything in this film is seen through the eyes of horny teenage boy in arrested development. All the relationships our main character Sam (Shia Lebouf) has are at an arm's length distance. There is no sense of intimacy, no revelations, no connections. Everyone is an object of use or desire, an obstacle, or just a thing to our characters. Any woman outside of our main character's mom is objectified primarily as a sex symbol. Bathed in golden yellows and filmed with a peeping eye, the portrayal of women here is immature in the least, repulsing at best. Most of these women are found at the college Sam attends and it too gets the Bay treatment. Sam's dorm is co-ed, where all the women look like hot models (his roommate compiles a 'Freshman Top 50') and apparently come out of the bathrooms and walk the halls in just towels. In fact, from the first day at college, one of the women tries to throw herself at Sam, doing anything to get him to have sex.

Getting the adolescent treatment as well is the military. Michael Bay should be the first person the military hires to film their commercials because he films the military in the same way he films women, with an objectified and leering camera. However, Bay gives us shot after shot of military porn without any depth or context whatsoever. The military commanders and soldiers (which the first film at least gives them something to do) are so one note and unexplained in the film, that one could guess they really were written by a teenage boy.

Of course, it isn't all bad to see the world through a teenage boy's eyes. There really is a 'cool' factor to Transformers 2 that other films have a hard time matching. Bay is masterful at incorporating visual effects to the locations and giving us some incredible visuals. Of course, as with any juvenile 'cool', it's empty and hollow and forgotten afterwards. There is scene that plays out for nearly five minutes where a decepticon robot infiltrates a military compound by turning itself into little balls and reassembling itself. Its a 'cool' scene that must have taken hundreds of thousands of dollars and months of an effect houses time. However, it reminded of the virtuoso mechanical spider sequence in Speilberg's Minority Report, where Cruise and a Spider struggle to keep his eyes blindfolded. Integrated into the story and the characters, Spielberg's spiders may not be as complicated and 'cool', but they are memorable and effective.

The other advantages of this worldview are that we are treated to a bunch of action sequences. The action sequences range from good (a forest encounter between Optimus Prime and three Decepticons being the best) to outright boring and frustrating (the entire action finale). Included with this worldview are cartoonish stock characters and an over-reliance on sex and body fluid jokes. Some of them are funny, but we unfortunately have to sit through a parade of them to hear a couple good ones.

Is Transformers 2 a bad movie? It would seem a slam dunk 'yes' from my analysis above, but I am forced to conclude that Transformers 2 is a bad film only because I care nothing for the perspective in which Michael Bay has infused the whole thing. I have to give the film respect for being a big, bold, and unique artistic film. For those who don't mind the universe Bay has created in Transformers 2 (judging by the box office returns and some friend reactions there seem to be plenty), then I can understand how they give the film high ratings. This is not a lazy or slapped together film (even if the cobbled together plot suggests it). Transformers 2 represents the unique labor of an artist who has given birth to a film that fully encompasses his cinematic vision. On that alone, I give it respect that others seem to not pick up on. However, I just don't enjoy wallowing and celebrating in indulgent teenage immaturity. Call me a prude, but if that sounds like your idea of a good time, then this film is for you.