Edge of Darkness

Underneath the generic sounding title and a misleading advertising campaign, Edge of Darkness is a talky political thriller with uncommon depth. It is packaged as a revenge flick, but finds firm footing as a vehicle signaling Mel Gibson’s return after an eight year hiatus.

The film’s setup would put it in the same league as last year’s absurd action pic Taken. Gibson’s Thomas Craven has a working man’s honesty and integrity. As a veteran of the Boston police force, he is left grieving after his daughter, visiting him during an impromptu day off from work, is gunned down outside his apartment. Their scenes together, both before she dies and in flashbacks as a child from his past, anchor and thereafter channel Craven’s eventual rage and drive. This is in direct contrast to Taken’s one-note revenge movie mode, based on formula and lack of rational, where we never felt the anguish of the father nor the hurt he felt at a loss so great.

Director Martin Campbell’s slow build approach is used effectively in startling the audience into submission. Given how quiet and wordy much of the film is the few sequences of violence are brutal and jolting. Even when we know, as the trailers have prepared us for it, that Emma Craven will be shot, the scene where this happens is shocking in its cruelty. Campbell, who also directed the BBC mini series twenty five years ago on which this film is based, has by now mastered the tempered techniques he utilized in making Casino Royale such an audience favourite of the Bond series.

Like last year’s equally rousing State of Play, also based on a British television mini-series, Edge of Darkness has the profundity of a book while still being condensable enough to meet the lean, finite demands of a two hour motion picture. Perhaps this represents a new breed of films that don’t use literary mediums as sources of adaptation but instead other visual mediums such as television mini-series (especially British), which present a more natural supply of ripe material. The American media, never tired of vilifying celebrities such as Mel Gibson for their personal lives, have given the film a cold response and put to doubt their ability to objectively judge the final product (as they did with Tom Cruise a couple of years ago). Gibson’s involvement with this film, no stranger to movies about revenge, lost causes or suffering for dead children, renders this a deliberate choice on his part, but also allows us to welcome him in a familiar role. Anyone else would have probably been less successful.

Invictus

Invictus is a triumphant fusion of sports film and historical drama. Like the latter it serves as a placeholder of a period, recreating an era from the recent past but also retaining all of the genre conventions viewers have come to expect from the former. The film isn’t particularly well balanced, nor is it anything but simplistic in its outcome, but none of this prevents it from being both rousing as a sports film and stirring as a drama.

The year is 1995 and South Africa’s newly emancipated president, Mandela (Morgan Freeman, graceful and understated) is faced with the daunting task of uniting a country divided for generations by ethnicity and colour. There is friction between blacks and whites captured well in a scene where two sets of security teams from both races, hand picked by the President himself, have to work together in ensuring the safety of their elected representative. Historically, the film tells us, the Springboks were seen in the country as a team of white players in a sport favoured, played and seen by white men. These early scenes showcase the trajectory of the film – that Mandela was a shrewd politician who understood the power of sports and the influence of athletes (or any celebrities with large followings) as not just agents of change but as facilitators for acceptance of such change.

Due to the political aura of the sports event in the film, the stakes are much higher. In most films, a team is cheered for because the people in that team are representing the aspirations (to win the match, to defeat their opponent etc) of the people cheering them. In Invictus, this vibrancy is given a more significant edge – the team needs to win because the country stands a chance at unanimity. Eastwood’s leading men serve the script well, with Matt Damon suitably buffed to play charismatic captain Francois Pienaar and Freeman deserving of his Academy Award nomination in a role that is less imitation and more an emulation of the grace of a figure as recognizable as Mandela.

On the playing field, sports have often been used as a substitute for the battle cries of war and inciting national pride. In fact for many, sporting teams are pacifist armies and sporting events a form of peaceful battle, where rivalries are fought out.  Eastwood’s film embraces this point of view by showing us that Mandela knew that a victory in the Rugby World cup would go a long way in possibly uniting, albeit briefly, the diverse people of his country, if not entirely improving the status quo. The film ends, as all sports movies do, with a glorious victory match and its brief, joyous celebratory aftermath (these are foregone conclusions and historic facts) and this has made some question the unsophisticated intentions of the director. This last act, suffers by giving us nearly thirty minutes of sports fuelled action, hinting at the limited capabilities of Eastwood in directing quick cut field play, but I’m willing to cut him some slack given his endurance at this age.

Precious: Based on the Novel Push by Sapphire

Precious isn’t subtle. In telling the story of a black, extremely obese, underprivileged, teenage single mother with a down’s syndrome inflicted child who is abused (physically, emotionally, verbally) by both her parents and finds herself the victim of incest, the film has time to give us one last shocking reveal by the end, that Clareece ‘Precious’ Jones suffers from AIDS as well. Is there any predicament that doesn’t befall her?

The first signs of trouble in the film are the glaringly obvious, gimmicky, pseudo documentary camera work, which zooms in an out of characters faces while they stare blankly at the screen during key scenes. Director Lee Daniels (producer of similarly morose but better made films Monsters Ball and Woodsmen, benefitting by not being directed by him) uses every known indie film cliché including using semi-intelligent voice over narration to emphasize Clareece’s fragmented thoughts. This approach, where the narrative is peppered with fantasy moments of Clareece imagining herself as a diva, singer, actress etc is based on the celebrated book (which employed stream of consciousness), but it is important to differentiate the film from its source material. This story, a work of fiction ‘inspired’ by author Sapphire’s experiences dealing with such women when she was teaching, masquerades as fact when it is clearly not. By amalgamating every known predicament that can inflict itself on the poor and downtrodden, it creates an artificial archetype of the destitute that is rarely convincing.

The storytelling approach is heavy handed, often using extreme exaggerations where none are required. When Clareece returns from the hospital with her second child, her wildly abusive mother (Monique, aiming for nothing more than shock and awe with her excessive use of profanity) throws her baby on a cushion and attacks her daughter. The scuffle ends with the two hulking women pushing each other around the house and throwing things at each other, including a television set. Many in the audience gasped. Others laughed. I was among the latter because I could not help but be amused by the shamelessly embellished attempt at inciting audience sympathy for someone who had already been portrayed as so lowly a human being.

Precious has little going for it, save for its honest performances. Of these, Mo’Nique’s big mama with a filthy mouth has already gotten the lion’s share of its overwrought publicity, but newcomer Gabourey Sidibe as the titular character, Mariah Carey as a sympathetic social worker and especially Paula Patton as lesbian patron saint/teacher/savior turn in effective turns. But good performances can’t save this film, which gives blaxploitation a whole new meaning. Watching it is like sitting through a feature film length episode of the Jerry Springer trash TV show.

The Hurt Locker

In the risky business of fighting wars, the riskiest tasks belong to the bomb disposal squad of Bravo Company at Camp Victory. The Hurt Locker zeroes on these soldiers in Iraq, thrusting us dead centre in the midst of one bravura bomb sequence after the other. The film is a collection of taut vignettes and up until its last act where it gets personal, remains fairly objective and observant without any obvious sermonizing.

Sergeant James (Jeremy Renner) is assigned to Camp Victory with 39 days remaining before his rotation ends. His work is to diffuse or dispose any explosive devices found on the streets of Iraq and he goes about it with a zeal that others find reckless. His relationship with the members of his squad is put to the test while on duty, forcing each to re-evaluate their stand on the war, along with its purpose and the impact on their lives. The opening title states “The rush of battle is a potent and lethal addiction, for war is a drug”. This rush and its drug like provision is what the film earnestly deconstructs by focusing on the character of James. The films most remarkable moment occurs not on the battle field but during its last few minutes when James has an honest monologue with his son that reveals much about a soldiers wounded psyche. Actor Renner has a disarming confidence about him, an everyman attitude that distinguishes him as workaholic, not cocky or violently gung ho. In a distinct departure from war movie cliché, he is neither disgruntled nor war weary, approaching every perilous situation with an almost pleasant eagerness borne out of experience and possibly war fatigue.

The threats in the film are heightened, thanks to director Kathryn Bigelow’s marvelous camera work and precise handling of each bomb disarmament sequence (and there are many ranging from bombs inside cars to bombs inside people). Making excellent use of aural and visual cues, the tense segments become almost unbearable to watch. Strangers passing by, litter on the streets, fighter planes whizzing overhead in sonic boom all add in compounding our fear of hostile surroundings. I found myself almost relieved when the soldiers came back to camp. I’m sure you’ve heard the statement before, but this film really does put the viewer in the centre of the action, in the heat of the moment. Standout scenes, both occurring in the films stronger, better first half, have James trying to defuse a bomb in a rusty car outside a UN building while being filmed by unknown men, and a spellbinding sequence in the desert where the crew is attacked by snipers (the toll and strain on the men really shows). Bigelow may be the biggest revelation for mainstream audiences unfamiliar with her work, but her career as a filmmaker has been preparing her for just such a polished film – her remarkable abilities have always been on full display in the underappreciated gems K-19: Widowmaker and Strange Days.

If every war has its film, then it is true what has already been said about Hurt Locker – that it is indeed the most definitive film about the Iraq war yet, not because it tell us something ideological about the war or its purpose, but because it summarizes so well, the unending, unyielding, almost purposeless brutality and chaos which we read about daily (the films cyclic end only reinstates this viewpoint). This is one of those few films that lingers long after it has ended and which despite what you’ve heard or read about it, still lives up to its hype.

#10: Sherlock Holmes

You know that feeling when there’s someone in the audience who keeps announcing to the world what next to expect from a scene in a movie? That irritating annoyance building into anger as the movie progresses? He then laughs loudly when what he predicted does happen? That most annoying member in the cinema, in this particular case, was the movie itself. Robert Downey Jr. and Guy Ritchie transformed Doyle’s suave and intelligent Sherlock Holmes into a filthy know-it-all rascal with a faux English twang unable to get over his love for Jude Law’s bum. The movie further suffered from the hammed-up theatricality of Mark Strong’s Illusionist-inspired Lord Blackwood. With Sherlock Holmes, Guy Ritchie seemed to have one intention: to make the world more mediocre.

#9: Angel and Demons

A very long, very boring wild goose chase. Peppered with theological mumbo-jumbo and conspiracy theory fluff, this stuff should have been fun like the Indiana Jones films, but was instead stuffy and uptight. Blame not just director Ron Howard for the ponderous serving (so generic you could almost smell the packaging the film came out of) but also the writers of this mess. Buried under endless layers of exposition was dialogue that sounded like meaningless trivia tied together with moments of extreme sensationalism (Pope dying, Vatican bomb threat etc). Bland, mechanical and sedating, the film took what once would have be considered simplistic, summer movie fun to new ridiculous lows.

#8: Funny People

The unfunny Funny People continued talentless uber hack Judd Apatow’s attempt at pretending to be a director (i.e. rolling the camera while he nibbled on some breakfast in his trailer and let his actors “improvise the script”). If there is anything worse than a disease-of-the-week movie, its a disease-of-the-week movie masking itself as humane tragicomedy. Apatow regular Seth Rogen teamed up with Adam Sandler, as stand up comedians (honestly, not a single one of their routines tickled our ribs) who go on a journey of self-discovery. The only good thing about the film, Eric Bana playing his badass native self, couldn’t save how lifeless everything felt. Apatow can now go back to TV.

#7: Underworld: Rise of the Lycans

Frankly, we don’t even remember Underworld 3 that well – that’s how totally pointless and ultimately dull this offering was. In an uninspiring, overused movie franchise cliche, this film was presented as a prequel to the drama that took place thus far in the previous two Underworld films. Vampires enslave werewolves, one of them being the more superior race, but the vampire lord’s daughter, a super strong and sexy female, had the hots for a werewolf – but because they were from different clans, their love became unacceptable, or something like that. A few underwhelming fights here and there, and then it suddenly dawned upon us – the movie had ended and we had wasted our time completely.

#6: My Bloody Valentine 3D/ Final Destination 3D

3D really took off in 2009, a technology that historically was found fitting for horror films. Which is why it seemed natural, dare we say, exciting to see cheesy, over-the-top kills on the big screen. Alas, the two 3D horror films that we did get in 2009 were just plain appalling. Both stories didn’t make sense even by slasher horror standards (especially My Bloody Valentine – what was up with that ending?), but more unforgivable was the fact that both film were derivative, lacked imagination, had awful actors and not in a sincere, B-movie campy way either. Making us choose the worst between the two would be like having to choose between getting your head chopped off by a flying axe or by a flying spinning wheel.

#5: The Spirit/ Watchmen

Frank Miller is a legend in the comic book world. The Spirit was realized for big screen by the same mind (based on artist Will Eisner’s original comic series). Miller, who we always knew as a writer of brilliant graphic novels, cannot direct; he proved himself utterly incapable of translating the conceptual ideas behind the book to the format of narrative cinema. The Spirit was a mishmash of technology and celebrities hungry to immerse themselves into pop culture. Wanting to be cool, there was a sad desperation in its longing to be the next Sin City, which at least had the reputation of becoming funny after several rounds of beer. For a film with the word ’spirit’ in its title, there was a devastating irony in its failure!

Watchmen was a failure on another level. It was over-hyped, preceded by controversy, and everybody expected it to fail, which it did. Alan Moore’s graphic novel of the same name is considered one of the greatest book (and not just comic) of all time, but always deemed unadaptable, and perhaps it should have been left that way. It might seem unfair to equate The Spirit, which was utter rubbish, with Watchmen, which was colossal disappointment, but everything boils down to potential. No one expected anything from Frank Miller as the director of The Spirit so it was easy to dismiss it; this was not true of Zack Snyder’s helming Watchmen, which turned out to be a cartoonish imitation of the greatly significant themes from Alan Moore’s seminal work.

#4: X–Men Origin: Wolverine

The graphic novel “Weapon X” is considered one of the most brutal, bloody and imaginative origins of any mainstream comic book super-hero. Adapting this book into a child friendly, PG-13 movie was a mistake. Merging the character of Weapon XI with Deadpool was outrageous. To top it off though, nothing could be more unforgivable, in a movie about fictional superheroes no less, than mediocre special effects. Crammed with many unnecessary blink-and-you’ll miss cameos from the X-men comics, the movie reached appalling heights of gaudiness with an over-the-top, superficial, climactic battle that was probably conceived by (and possibly for) 7-year olds. If Hugh Jackman’s consistent performance were not complemented by Liev Schreiber’s menacing Sabretooth, X-Men Origins: Wolverine would be relegated to the worst of the franchise (below even the dismal X-Men: The Last Stand), something it managed to avoid, just barely.

#3: Paul Blart Mall Cop

Have you ever been to a mall? Have you ever seen the security guards there? If so, then watching them do mundane things would probably be more amusing than watching this Kevin James starer. The movie lacked in comedy, a compelling storyline, decent performances, music, and every area of movie making. It didn’t surprise us that the movie was so dumbed down  - it was a Happy Madison production after all, made with the lowbrow American moviegoer in mind. If you wanted a movie about security guards at mall, you were better off watching the underrated black comedy Observe and Report.

#2: Knowing

We here at WM pride ourselves opposing popular critical opinion, being the minority at hating a loved film or loving a hated film. With Knowing, we were comfortably with the masses. The minority in this case was uber-famous critic Roger Ebert who gave it four stars and later wrote an article wondering why other critics reacted so negatively. Well, Roger, since you asked: the script, direction, CGI effects, and of course Nicholas Cage’s overzealous bad acting could only be described with a four lettered word which starts with S and rhymes with HIT. Not just your normal, popcorn fun type of S**T, but the stinking, freshly defecated, thrown at your face kind.

#1: Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen

The success of the first Transformers movie fooled the masses into visiting cineplexes a second time with the promise of watching more cool robots smashing each other up in an orgy of awesome CGI fights. While the first film was mindless, silly fun, this one was just plain silly. What went wrong? Michael Bay’s career as a director was never centered around good writing or coherent stories, instead he always allowed himself to cater to the A.D.D side of the adult male psyche, the part that appreciates action scenes, huge explosions, wisecracking jokes et al. This trait served him well many times in the past, but not with this film. Blame it on a stretched runtime of over 2 and a 1/2 hrs, a messy and convoluted plot that didn’t make much sense, or better yet, blame the greedy studios and its hired director. Anyway you look at it the result was a loud boring carnage. The 7 Razzie noninations (including Worst picture of the year) are truly deserved.

Dishonorable Mentions (in alphabetical order):
2012
Dance Flick
G.I. Joe: The Rise of Copra
The Taking of Pelham 1, 2, 3
Wendy and Lucy

Films We Never Saw But Know Are Bad, Really Fucking Bad:
All About Steve
G-Force
Love Happens
New Moon
Old Dogs
Pink Panther 2
Street Fighter: Legend of Chun Li
The Ugly Truth

Daybreakers
Michael Spierig | USA | 2009

In a world inhabited by vampires, who are running out of valuable blood supplies, Ethan Hawke leads a group of his kind to try and save vampires (and humans). What works in building intrigue is the movie’s sleek trailer, the presence of the Ethan Hawke, Willem Dafoe and Sam Neill and an apt rating of R (for Restricted kiddos). Daybreakers may finally give the grown-up boys a vampire movie to talk about after the Blade series.

The Book of Eli
Albert Hughes | USA | 2009

Denzel Washington plays a messiah-sort in a desolate, post-apocalyptic America, where the only hope for humanity is the titular book. If Denzel Washington taking on a bunch of thugs by himself is not cool enough for you, Gary Oldman is back as the baddie. And he goes by the name “Carnegie”.

Legion
Scott Stewart | USA | 2009

God (the Jehovah version) is fed up of us sinners. So he initiates apocalypse by unleashing an army of angels, led by ever faithful Gabriel. But Michael has other plans – he believes Mankind can be salvaged by the messiah, except… the messiah must first be given birth to by a pregnant waitress in a desolate truck-diner, somewhere in Southwest America. Expect action, horror and fantasy to be combined in a way only seen before in Constantine. Paul Bettany plays the Archangel Michael.

Edge of Darkness
Martin Campbell | USA | 2009

007 helmer Martin Campbell directs this thriller about a homicide detective, Mel Gibson, out to find his daughter’s killer. After Rambo 4 and Die Hard 4, we know these old tough guys can still play action heroes and kick some serious ass. Last time Mel Gibson had a starring role, we got Signs. Last time Mel Gibson played a bad-ass, we got Payback.

The Wolfman
Joe Johnston | USA | 2009

The Wolfman is another retelling of the werewolf origin, this one right in time for Valentine’s Day. Normally, such a film would not draw much attention, but names like Anthony Hopkins, Benicio del Toro, Hugo Weaving and Emily Blunt arouse a level of interest. Although director Joe Johnston hasn’t given us much to enjoy lately, where this movie may have already hit the mark with the formidable promotional material (moody trailer and posters). Looks like a wonderful mix of horror and period-piece, and after Che, we’ll watch any movie with Benicio del Toro in it.

Shutter Island
Martin Scorcese | USA | 2009

Scorsese is back with his muse, Leonardo. There are a bunch of other big names thrown in, but what makes the film seem exciting is the sinister plot: Leo is a US Marshal investigating a disappearance at an asylum for the criminally insane, situated on a remote island. Not just is the movie based on another book by Dennis Lehane (Gone Baby Gone, Mystic River), it stars Ben Kingsley as a doctor. For the criminally insane. Oh yes.

Alice in Wonderland
Tim Burton | USA | 2009

Honestly, Tim Burton has by now become boring and redundant, beaten at his own game by the likes of visionaries such as Guillermo Del Toro. We’ve seen enough of Burton’s morphed reality to find his work unsurprising. But it seems he may have finally found a story that can work alongside his skewed perspective. Why the sudden optimism with his latest movie? For one, Alice is now a 19yr old girl, returning to Wonderland to face the Red Queen of Hearts. It’s also shot and released in Digital 3D under the Disney production house, giving us a chance to experience Burton’s bizarre visuals anew. Lastly, it stars Burton’s muse Johnny Depp, as the Mad Hatter. Some more inspired casting apart from the obvious: among others, Anne Hathaway as the White Queen, Crispin Glover as the Knave of Hearts and Alan Rickman as the Caterpillar.

Clash of the Titans
Louis Leterrier | USA | 2009

Louis Leterrier, the director of 2008’s Incredible Hulk brings us this FX heavy fantasy tale from Greek Mythology of Perseus’ epic sea journey. In his third masochistic outing, Sam Worthington (Terminator Salvation, Avatar) plays the hero who faces Medusa, Poseidon, Athena, Ares and a host of giant creatures. In an exciting match-up, Liam Neeson and Ralph Fiennes play the feuding brothers Zeus and Hades.

Kick-Ass
Matthew Vaughn | USA | 2009

When major studios did not approve Matthew Vaughn’s faithful adaptation of a gritty, violent comic book about a crime-fighting student, he decided to make the movie anyway – with his own company fully financing the project. It’s also rated R (rare for a comic book based film), though it is about teens in home-grown costumes fighting crime with no powers or skills.

Wall Street 2: Money Never Sleeps
Oliver Stone | USA | 2009

Greed is good again. Oliver Stone revisits his iconic 80s film. Shia LeBeouf continues his Hollywood apprenticeship under the tutelage of Michael Douglas. Charlie Sheen gets a shot at the big screen again. It should be a marvelous watch, especially with the recession having left such a sour taste. (Note: Make sure you’ve seen the first Wall Street)

A Nightmare on Elm Street
Samuel Bayer | USA | 2009

The new Freddy Kruger is played by Jackie Earle Haley. Who? He who played Rorschach in Watchmen and the creepy pedophile in Little Children. While it is an interesting casting choice, it could be hard to up the original and the role that Robert Englund defined so brilliantly. But… this is Freddy Kruger’s origin! Plus, the director made the music video for Metallica’s Until It Sleeps. Now that’s creepy.

Iron Man 2
Jon Favreau | USA | 2009

The title should be enough. To be sure, it has the same director and actor. Throw in Mickey Rourke as villain Whiplash and Scarlett Johansson as Russian spy Black Widow. Need I say more? Okay, here’s more. The trailer shows War Machine, in action. FTW!

Robin Hood
Ridley Scott | USA | 2009

Another movie about the Prince of Thieves, though to be more specific, this is Ridley Scott’s version. Expect a Gladiator style, swords & sandals epic, full of powerful speeches and an bloody remorselessness. The master filmmaker might be growing old but, in all probability, he still packs a solid punch. To add, Russell “Maximus” Crowe plays the hero.

Shrek Forever After
Mike Mitchell | USA | 2009

Shrek, Fiona, Donkey, Puss-in-Boots in an all-new adventure, this time in glorious 3D. It has been announced (for now) as the last Shrek movie. Rejoice!

Prince of Persia – Sands of Time
Mike Newell | USA | 2009

Yes, the same erstwhile 2D scrolling prince from the legendary video game. And while the effects look good, the trailer did not really do much. Yet, there is hope. This is from the studio that brought us the Pirates of the Caribbean movies, trying to repeat their formula. Jake Gyllenhaal plays the prince.

The A-Team
Joe Carnahan | USA | 2009

Joe Carnahan (Smokin’ Aces, Narc) brings to the big screen this extremely popular 80s TV show. If you didn’t know the series, you certainly knew Mr T. The success of this movie could start a race to adapt more TV series from its era. Notice the guy in the suit? That is Hangover’s Bradley Cooper.

Jonah Hex
Jimmy Haward | USA | 2009

Josh Brolin plays Jonah Hex, a scarred bounty hunter from the Wild West tracking a voodoo practitioner who wants to raise an army of the undead to liberate the South. The voodoo practitioner is John Malkovich. The female lead, corset, boots and all, is Megan Fox.

Toy Story 3
Lee Unkrich | USA | 2009

Pixar. Woody & Buzz. 3D.

Knight & Day
James Mangold | USA | 2009

From the director of Walk The Line & 3:10 to Yuma comes this big-star, action-comedy (think Mr & Mrs Smith) about a fugitive couple. Although Cameron Diaz has started to look like everyone’s oldest aunt, we will endure this, because… Tom Cruise is playing a spy!

The Last Airbender
M Night Shyamalan | USA | 2009

M Night Shyamalan’s name may not carry the “awe factor” it used to, but let’s not deny that he is a supremely talented craftsman. The Last Airbender benefits from a story already established through the popular animated TV series. With the Lord of the Rings cinematographer and a host of other eminent technicians in the crew, this looks set to become THE epic of the year. Have you seen the teaser trailer?!

Predators
Nimród Antal | USA | 2009

Robert Rodriguez leaves behind his children’s movie infatuation to return firmly back to guy-movie territory by producing this remake. Predators finds our favorite intergalactic hunters fighting a familiar enemy – humans! The elite human warriors include, among others, Laurence Fishburne and… Danny Trejo.

Inception
Christopher Nolan | USA | 2009

Christopher Nolan (Batman Begins, The Dark Knight, Memento, The Prestige) directs this big-Budget mind-bending thriller, starring Leonardo DiCaprio, Joseph Gordon-Levitt (remember that name), Ellen Page, Marion Cotillard, Cillian Murphy, Ken Watanabe & Michael Caine. Inception is based on an original story that has officially been summarized as “a sci-fi thriller set within the architecture of the mind.” It also has the best teaser & trailer of any 2010 movie so far.

Salt
Philip Noyce | USA | 2009

In this action thriller, Angelina Jolie plays an accused-spy on the run from the authorities to prove her innocence. Angelina Jolie doing action! Knockout!!

The Expendables
Sylvester Stallone | USA | 2009

Expendables, directed by Sylvester Stallone, is an 80’s style action movie, a tribute to the era & the genre. The line up reads like an action junkies wet dream – Sly himself, Jason Statham, Jet Li, Mickey Rourke, Danny Trejo,  Dolph Ludgren & (Stone Cold) Steve Austin. Look out for cameos by Bruce Willis & Arnold Schwarzenegger. Bliss!

Priest
Scott Stewart | USA | 2009

Paul Bettany is back in for the second this time year with the director of the year’s earlier major film, Legion. This time, he plays a priest disobeying the church’s orders to track down the kidnappers of his niece. Except, the kidnappers are… vampires. And one of them is Karl Urban.

The American
Anton Corbijn | USA | 2009

It’s fun to see George Clooney play suave and sophisticated characters. Even the sometimes Quirky, simple roles that he plays are fun. In The American, he is an assassin hiding in Italy for his final assignment. Expect the film to ooze cool charm, just like the man himself.

The Social Network
David Fincher | USA | 2009

David Fincher could make a movie about a phonebook and still make it interesting. So he does almost that – he’s making his next film on “facebook”. Little is known about the movie, but what we do know is that it stars Justin Timberlake as the founder of the popular social-networking site. Don’t doubt it – it still is David Fincher!

Harry Potter & the Deathly Hallows: Part I
David Yates | USA | 2009

Finally, the last book of the Harry Potter series. But wait, it’s not the last movie yet – “Deathly Hallows” is a long book and detailed enough to be split into two films – Deathly Hallows I and Deathly Hallows II. Even so, if the sixth movie is any indication, these could be a good last couple of films, measured by the uneven standards of the Harry Potter film franchise. Interestingly, much of the setting is outside Hogwarts, in and around present-day London with the three main characters in hiding and on the run.

Rapunzel
Nathan Greno & Byron Howard | USA | 2009

Since Disney decided to come back to fairy tales with 2009’s Princess and the Frog, it was a natural step to adapt one of the famous princesses whose tale hasn’t been told to us yet – Rapunzel. The setting fits in perfectly well with the others of her ilk (Snow White, Sleeping Beauty, Cinderella, etc). The aim is to make the movie look as close to the Disney classics of yesteryears, as possible (hand-drawn water-paintings), but to do so using the latest pixel technology and in 3D.

Tron Legacy
Joseph Kosinski | USA | 2009

If you’ve seen the original Tron (1982), that should reason enough to get excited about this sequel. If you have not seen Tron (or even if you have), watch the awesome teaser:

Note: This short-list of 30 movies is not meant to be a complete guide for what to watch out of Hollywood in 2010. It merely is an indication of the ones that have successfully aroused our interest. Look out for our views on these (and many more) as the year progresses. Happy watching!

Up In The Air
Jason Reitman | USA | 2009
109 min

Up in the Air finds Clooney as a “career transition specialist”. His work requires him to travel frequently, feeling little remorse in letting go of people earmarked for downsizing by companies too afraid to handle them personally, because of the mess. Welcome to another view of the modern world by way of director Jason Reitman, him of Juno and Thank You for Smoking fame.

Reitman has made his own formula now predictable — his films are about jerks with a heart (this includes little Juno). The ultra confident characters always mask insecurities beneath their smugness. Clooney’s narcissistic Ryan Bingham is no different. As a road warrior who has shunned family, relationships and the need to settle down, Bingham finds comfort in the morose, artificial surroundings of airports and hotel rooms. Here is the kind of character Fight Club satirized but Reitnam reveres. The film pairs him with Natalie Keener (Anna Kendrick, excellent in her sincere vulnerability), a spunky, wet-behind-the-ears new recruit at his company who he is assigned to show the ropes to. Natalie has an idea that could save their company precious thousands: the use of technology and new media to sacking people remotely. This makes Ryan uneasy and briefly, at least, presents a threat.

Like a hitmen road trip film (think Grosse Pointe Blank, The Matador et al), Ryan and Natalie’s travels en route to their firing routine become a symbolic journey of self-discovery through the American heartland. Natalie becomes more cynical while Ryan sobers up to the joys of companionship when he meets his female equivalent in Alex (spunky Vera Farmiga), a fellow frequent traveller who also racks up the air miles. While the films message is old, its presentation is fresh and amusing. Aiding it is the considerable charm of Clooney, whose scenes of witty, quick banter with both Alex and Natalie (the three end up together during a trip) are the films highlight.

Up in the Air suffers, as every Reitman film has in the past, by trying to be both wildly comical and seriously dramatic. Bookended by scenes of actual victims of recessionary retrenchment, who play minor characters in the film (alongside some recognizable faces), it chooses to tread the familiar rom-com route exploring relationships rather than the reality it projects itself from. The film has been called timely and relevant given the present economic state of the world, but those would be misleading adjectives for what is essentially a glum date flick, though not without its merits. Even when the film seems like it might delve into genre conventions (Clooney racing through the airport to meet his lover) the cynical script elevates it with surprises that you may not see coming. Certainly the year’s most depressingly hopeful film, if not necessarily the best.

The Messenger

The Messenger treads a noteworthy path. It is a slice-of-life film, focusing on essentially three characters in everyday America, yet is about a lot more than it shows. It brings a global conflict to our doorstep and down to a personal level. Although it is about grief, the movie is not heavy-laden with the emotion itself. This becomes the movie’s biggest accomplishment.

Will Montgomery (Ben Foster) has three months left in active duty after mostly recovering from an injury on-field in Iraq. To complete service, he is assigned to the army’s Casualty Notification Service under seasoned notifier Capt. Tony Stone (Woody Harrelson). Stone follows the rule-book: arrive at the next-of-kin’s as soon as news of the soldier’s death is received; inform the family in a rehearsed precise and concise manner; leave. No compassion or explanation is to be offered. While Montgomery initially follows the rule book, his experiences with heartbroken parents and spouses eventually move him to be benevolent. He eventually befriends a grieving widow, taking it to the point of a budding romantic relationship.

The characters of Montgomery and Stone are interestingly different. While Montgomery has seen combat up-close and is even a decorated war-hero, Stone never went to the war zone. Yet, it is Stone who takes on an apathetic mannerism in his somber work, while Montgomery sees a need for compassion. What they do share is loneliness. The Messenger looks at these two people intimately, preferring to explore the sorrow and solitude of these two characters instead of the grieving relatives that they bring tragic news to. Montgomery’s pre-service girlfriend (Jena Malone) did not wait for him, and is getting married. She does not want Montgomery to attend. Stone is a recovering alcoholic. So while Montgomery finds comfort in the company of an army widow (Samantha Morton), Stone finds comfort in the company his new aide. In one powerful scene, Montgomery narrates to Stone the incident that got him his medal. Afterward when left alone in the room, Stone breaks down crying in what becomes the crescendo of a wonderful and heartfelt performance by Harrelson. Samantha Morton’s widow character goes through her period of doubt and uncertainty, unsure of the possibility of a relationship with Montgomery. Ben Foster, in a restrained seething performance himself portrays Montgomery as a suffering hero. By concentrating on such intimate characters, director Moverman enlightens the plight of the veiled victims of war — the survivors, soldiers and civilians alike.

Do not look for melodramatic exposition here, there is none. The Messenger is a war movie that does not show us a war, or its horrors. It instead shows the perceptive effect of death and loss on the loved ones, the detachment that awaits returning soldiers and the sense of worthlessness in soldiers who did not fight. It brings the futility of war to its endpoint.

Bad Lieutenant: Port of Call – New Orleans
Werner Herzog | USA | 2009
122 min

I realised very late into Bad Lieutenant that perhaps it was not meant to be taken seriously. Werner Herzog is an eccentric director — his inquisitiveness knows no bound (as evident by his wonderful documentaries); but as a filmmaker he seems to enjoy unorthodox approaches, you know, the kind that conventional Hollywood rarely takes. Bad Lieutenant is just such a film. Edgy without being hip, uplifting in a strange way without making its central character possess any redeemable quality.

No one plays over-the-top as well as Nicolas Cage does, and here he cranks it up a notch or two. Not only is his character a rogue policeman in post-Katrina New Orleans, but he’s also an addict, in bed with the very criminals he seems to be pursuing, in love with a prostitute, prone to random acts of violence and sexuality on strangers; the list pretty much goes on. Cage makes this monster watchable. We root for him. The film puts him in one dangerous setting after another and just when you think he’s going to get his comeuppance, Herzog does something strange, almost goofy with the setting: he gives us a last act completely at tangents with where we think the film might be heading. This is not a twist, it’s not fate, this is just the way Herzog operates. Bad Lieutenant is his second American film, but just like he did with Rescue Dawn, the first of his non-German films, he seems to make fun of the predictable banality of every day cinema.

I have mentioned that Nicolas Cage’s character is without redemption. Read that carefully and remember it. It is not just an observation, in the film it is a fact. At one point we feel that the script could project into Training Day territory — Terrence McDonagh, the character Cage plays, is investigating the murder of a Senegalese family that dealt in drug trafficking. He gets too involved in the case, mixing in his personal life, as any good opportunist would, to make some quick money in order to pay off his gambling debts. In a lesser film, with the spiraling situation getting out of control, sure disaster would strike. Here something strange happens, something that fits nicely with the peculiar vision that Herzog has in store for his character.

The film has faults, including its slow brewing start, which essentially feels like a police procedural and seems to go nowhere, but once it does we not only get to see Cage in his mad glory, but also oddities like a sequence filmed form the point of view of swamp alligator (don’t ask, just see it already). Parallels could be made about how McDonagh gets away with the things he does, the state of New Orleans post-Katrina, and how people took advantage of the devastated city. There is some debate still brewing about whether the film is a remake or inspired by Abel Ferera’s 1992 film of the same name (unseen by me). Herzog insists it isn’t; this may be his idea of a joke as well.

Nine

Nine is a cinematic burlesque show. It stumbles into the spotlight as a treatise on art and cinema and the difficulty of filmmaking, but is really nothing more than an awful excuse to bring together on the big screen one named actor and a bunch of famed beauties. Based on a stage musical, itself based on Federico Fellini’s seminal 8 ½, Nine suffers from a grim setting, unmemorable songs, a wayward script, but mostly due to the miscasting of Daniel Day Lewis in the lead role. 

As a director suffering from mental block, Guido Contini’s professional stagnation is indistinguishable from other dime-a-dozen interpretations we’ve seen in movies before — for effective examples  see either Shakespeare in Love or even last years wonderful Synedoche New York. Instead of being light or brisk, the film is heavy on self-indulgence turning into a showy, bloated pap for Guido. Daniel Day Lewis brings his usual caged intensity to what is essentially, at its heart, a song and dance film about a man reminiscing about his life and his various muses (mother, lover, wife, etc). The seriousness renders the film needlessly weighty, without adding to its effectiveness, while being completely in visual contrast to the risqué clothing and debauchery on display. Director Rob Marshall does his best to inject the same energy that was well-used in his adaptation of Chicago, but all the rich production values cannot save a film from feeling weary.

When the film isn’t being a lingerie commercial — the various stars/divas/botox queens gyrate, strut or spank themselves in their lacey negligee — it gets lost in trying to be dramatic or relevant with its flashy editing and colourful mélange, feeling more like a Pussycat Dolls vintage music video. Fellini’s 8 ½ aimless yet relevant as it was (I am not an admirer of it), made use of the same setting to be both serious and funny, letting its dreaminess allow us to accept it as a man’s mental imagery. Here the imagery is forced, meant to awe us, such as the futile end where all of the stars gather on stage: for what, a final goodbye? I could only wish that the taking of bows had come much earlier.