Archive for the Uncategorized Category

The Harry Potter Movies (And Why They Fail)

Posted in Book Reviews, Entertainment, Movie Discussion, Movie Reviews, Uncategorized with tags , , , , , , , on November 14, 2009 by Brandon

This past summer I, like millions of people worldwide, sat down to enjoy the sixth Harry Potter film. Upon leaving the theatre, I knew that I enjoyed it more than the fifth movie (which was basically David Yates’s “Harry Potter 5’s Greatest Hits”), but didn’t quite know exactly how much I liked it. I mulled it over for a few months, my unease about the movie growing, no longer sure I liked it as much as I thought I did. Now, I know, and knowing David Yates is going to direct the two-parter seventh movie as well, I am more than apprehensive – I’m downright pessimistic.

I’ve always said about book to movie translations: change plot, change characters, names, places, if you must. But keep the spirit of the original. Stay true to what the author was trying to say, because if you’re going to twist the author’s thoughts and ideals, make a different freakin’ movie, because that’s what you’re doing.

Essentially, this is the problem with the Harry Potter series (the last 3 especially).  I’m able to shrug off plot points easily, even if they’re huge holes (Dumbledore disapparating in and out of Hogwarts??), because let’s face it, adapting these big fat books is a monumental task, and as long as you keep the theme, you can’t be expected to include every single detail of JK Rowling’s fully realized world. But as the HP series has gone along, more cuts have been made, reducing the length of the films (apparently the studio doesn’t trust fans that can plough through a 700+ page in a week to sit still for more than two and a half hours), until, I am so sad to say, the point of the series, with this most recent sixth movie, has been lost completely.

Spoilers Ahead

HP Article 2

Continue reading

Best and Worst Talking Movie Animals

Posted in Uncategorized with tags , , , on June 3, 2009 by Brandon

Another list for Screen Junkies! This one details the absolute trash of the live action wisecracking animal world, as well as some of those classic babbling beasts that made us laugh and love. (Shoot me for that schmaltz.)

Enjoy the 5 Best & Worst Talking Animals!

I’m THIS many!

Posted in Uncategorized with tags , , , , on July 17, 2008 by Brandon

Yesterday night I saw The Dark Knight, and it’s truly an amazing movie, but I won’t post my review quite yet. I want to give it time to percolate in my head and potentially watch it again (or maybe watch the first one again) before I write the review, but I did want to make a post today and self-indulgently chat with the internet about how I’ve been blogging for a year now.

I guess I’ve been blogging for a few years now – I put up reviews in myspace long before I even thought about starting this blog, and a couple failed blogs include one where I reviewed all the movies in my 200+ collection and one where I wrote several different types of stories. I even had an autobiographical xanga at one point, but eventually I became less and less interested in sharing my overly-dramatic life with the world at large and instead moved my sights to film blogging. I had loved film and writing for a long time, and every time a trailer or some bit of tidbit news had come up, I would have to post it in my xanga. Eventually, as my love for film increased, so did what film references were posted in xanga. I never did too much, because I felt that blog was more about my personal life than it was about my pop culture interests. And then I thought, “Hey, why not create a blog about my pop culture interests?”

And bam – Entertainment and Pop Culturalia was born (that’s why my blog’s url is like it is), a blog that took about a month or so to find its sure footing, and soon after that I expanded and created a youtube account. Thinking that Entertainment and Pop Culturalia was too obscure and gimmicky to appeal to youtubers, I came up with the name Movie Buzz Review Dude, and quickly after that changed this blog’s name.

Now it’s been a full year to the day since I created my first post, traffic has gone down on my site, I don’t post as many tidbits and news (though I may start that up again soon), and my blog has become much more review-centered. I’m sure it will go through a lot of changes in the coming months and years, and I’m hoping an increase in readership will be part of that as well. I’m planning on keeping this blog for a long long time, and I hope you regular readers out there stick with me for just as long.

Thanks for reading!

This Falcon has flown the coop

Posted in Uncategorized with tags , , on June 9, 2008 by Brandon

In honor of my recent college graduation I wrote the following note on facebook. I’m putting it here for posterity’s sake, and because I think it says something important about who I am. Enjoy. 🙂

So Saturday the day finally came, and then vanished without a trace. I look back at that day and think that it’s not much different from other nights I’ve spent partying during the year, except that I kept on ching-chinging people and screaming, “I’M GRADUATED!!!”

Today I walked through the SPU campus, on my way to visit a few of my library friends, and I felt a distinct difference from every other time I was walking through campus. I wasn’t walking to a certain place for class or work reasons – nope, it was just to get an alumni card. I didn’t belong, not in the sense that I used to. When I stepped into the library I felt very strange – not the kind of strange where you feel queasy or the kind of strange that makes your cheeks flare up in red, but the kind where it’s just a vague sense of unease – something ain’t right.

Earlier today I also found out that the Hollywood video job I thought I would be starting today won’t actually be able to start for two more weeks because graduation interfered with my orientation. I interviewed for Barnes & Noble today and they said they’ll let me know by the end of the week, and Regal last week said they’d let me know by mid-week this week.

So now in these few days where I will literally have nothing whatsoever to do, the extra time is already getting the wheels in my head turning overtime, and seeing as how I was planning on writing a post-graduation reflection anyways (hey, everybody’s doing it), I figured why not now?

I look back on these four years and realize how much I’ve wasted. I didn’t try my hardest in all of my classes, I puttered away a considerable amount of time on video games, movies, socializing, other unmentionable activities (:-)), and I didn’t read half the texts for a lot of my classes.

And yet, I’m graduation with a decent grade point average (It looks like it’ll be 3.3 by the time it’s all done – sure it’s not cum laude or anything but it’s respectable), I have learned much about both scholastic and life experience, and I’m generally happy with who I am and who I am becoming, and I realized something – I have succeeded.

I didn’t waste time. People argue that to take full advantage of life you need to be going at it 100% of the time, because life is short, and it’ll disappear before you know it. You can’t let any opportunities pass you by, because they may never come again. Pardon my rudeness, but I think this view is nothing more than thinly veiled cowardice. Sure, I chose to play five hours of Super Smash Brothers Brawl and spend that much less time on my paper than you, and sure, you may have gotten a couple of grades above mine in the class, but at the end of day, now that we’re both graduated, is that going to matter? Will you have gained anything that it is not still within my capacity to gain? Will you gain anything that will make me say, “Man, I wish I’d spent more time listening in Chaney’s class.”?

No, you won’t.

Life is one huge, giant adventure, and all these people telling us that life is short need to shut the hell up. If God is real, do you think he gave us this wondrous grand adventure that we can ride for years and years, all so that we can just run around telling people chokingly awful, boring cliches like, “Life is short, pray hard!” or “Blink and you’ll miss it!” or “Before you know it, you’ll be thirty!” or “It goes so fast!”

NO. NO. NO.

If there’s one thing my four years at college have taught me, it’s this – EVERYTHING in this world is part of this grand experience we call life. It’s not up to you, or anyone for that matter to tell the video gamer that he’s wasting away his life if he plays a couple of hours of Halo or Brawl or GTA4 every day; it’s not up to you, gamers, to disparage those who choose to throw themselves, heart, mind, and soul into their studies. Why can’t we live together and accept each other’s interests for what they are instead of labeling some as more smart, or more achieving than others, and others as the scum of society or boring underachievers? Who decides what is achieving and who doesn’t? You? Then what kind of person would I be if I just conformed to somebody else’s standards? Certainly not the kind of person I could ever think of respecting. I would disgust myself because I would have let somebody else’s ideals of who I should be and where I should go overtake that mattered to me and to God and to absolutely NOBODY else.

These past four years have flown by, but in a greater sense, I’ve lived some of the fullest life I’ve ever lived in them, and let me tell you, a lot of it had absolutely nothing to do with studies or books or classes or professors. Nope, some of it had to do with playing Brawl with Ian, going to Sully’s every Tuesday/Monday night, being told to shut up by Emily, Lola, Megan, and Kristin’s landlords, or sharing a special moment with a loved one.

In the film Magnolia, an old man on his death bed says to his nurse, “Don’t let anyone tell you life is short. It’s long, it’s too fucking long.”

I disagree and agree with this statement. I don’t think it’s too short or too long. I think it’s just right, and only you can decide what it’s going to be for you. Life is too amazing and too awesomely beautiful, in so so so so so so many ways to disparage God’s gift and do nothing but call it short. If the only reason you’re doing as much as you can is because you feel like you need to cram before a final, why are you doing it at all?

My life, with my Wii and my PS2 and my 200+ DVD collection and my close friends and far-away friends, and my family, and now my graduation, with my dinky minimum wage jobs about to pay my way through the summer, are just as full as yours.

I don’t want anyone to think this is a attack on them personally – it’s just my addressing a commentary that I often found being made towards people of our age – that life will be over before we know it and that we should just live as much as possible in what little time we have. I think this is a false illusion that we don’t need. I wrote in my capstone paper that life can be lived just as fully walking to 7-11 at one AM in the morning as it can be talking with a friend into the early hours of the morning or spending a few hours working on a paper- they are three experiences that can’t be equated, but that doesn’t mean that one is better than the other, and don’t you ever try to tell me that it does.

Another Hulk trailer!

Posted in Uncategorized with tags , on April 30, 2008 by Brandon

Yup, you heard that right. After months and months of no trailer, the Hulk is giving us overload with yet another trailer in less than two months. I’ll gladly take it.

Mean, green, smashing machine!

It looks like the movie might pick up immediately after the end of the last Hulk. He’s in South America, where we last left Eric Bana at the end of Ang Lee’s hulk. We shall see. Only about a month and a half left.

Star Trek delayed

Posted in Uncategorized on April 2, 2008 by Brandon

So here we are. Star Trek XI has been pushed back to May 2009, a full five months later  than originally slated. I’m kind of sad, but also a little bit relieved. Barely a year to work on such a massive project didn’t seem like enough, so hopefully this will only make it better. If it still sucks, though, they’ll have no excuse.

Blu-Ray is King!

Posted in Uncategorized with tags , , , , on April 1, 2008 by Brandon

So it’s been semi-official for the past few weeks, but the format war is finally over, and Blu-Ray is the victor, and to it go the spoils. I’m glad it’s finally over, and though I never really had the money to consider investing in either product, even if I had I would have waited it out. I laugh at people now who are sitting in their living rooms staring at their HD DVD players and wondering what the hell to do with them now. Of course, if you read the article, then you’ll know that prices have yet to stabilize, but one thing that did make me very happy was when it talked about how the PS3 is the best bang for your buck right now. Haha, go gaming system. Maybe now the PS3 will stop sucking. It’s getting there, but I’m still seeing no real standout games or gamplay. What I am excited for is God of War 3. When that comes out, it will definitely push the PS3 to its absolute limits, just like it did for PS2 and PSP. Here’s hoping.

In the meantime, I shall raise my bottle of Mountain Dew and say, “Cheers to you, Blu-Ray!”

Funny Games (8/10)

Posted in Uncategorized with tags , , , on March 25, 2008 by Brandon

funny-games.jpg

You sit in a cushioned seat, staring straight ahead of you, calmly observing people suffer. You cringe when you see blood spatter from various bodies, you cheer when there’s an explosion happening, and you practically get up and clap when the bad guy gets his due and has his head sliced cleanly off by a shiny blade. Yes, that’s right, you’re in a theatre, and doesn’t that make all the difference? It’s okay to watch people get killed in creative ways when you’re separated from them by a thin veil of celluloid, right? Michael Haneke, French director of such films like Code Unknown, throws this question like a javelin, straight to the heart of American audiences, and its point is so sharp and well honed that you’ll probably walk out of the theatre with something of a limp, and not without a small bit of resentment to the director for subjecting you to an hour and forty-seven minutes of torturous filmmaking.

Naomi Watts plays Ann, a wife who is on vacation with her husband and son at their weekend lake house and are about to discover that it is not Keanu Reeves and Sandra Bullock who are waiting outside their mailbox, but Paul and Peter, played with delicious and perfect haunting creepiness by Brady Corbet and Michael Pitt, two brothers who bet them that they will be dead by the next morning. So begins the night that never seems to end, neither for the family nor for the viewer.

Funny Games is not what you’d expect, which, if I’m to guess correctly from the movie, is exactly what director Haneke wanted. The trailer makes it seem like it’s going to be a fun night out where the family fights for their lives and ultimately emerge victorious through some good old fashioned wielding of golf clubs and kitchen knives. Now, I’m not going to say whether or not the family survives, but I will say that fun is the last word I would use to describe this film. Haneke’s point is not to use the onscreen suffering to give the viewer something of a little thrill, but rather to make him or her question the point and ultimate usefulness of watching something like this take place.

Movies like the Saw and Hostel series thrive on one thing, and one thing only: watching people almost literally get pulled apart in creative ways. The average fan goes into those films expecting to see people suffer, in increasingly gory fashion, until some fountain of blood explodes onto the floor or until the bad guy has his head sliced off by a shiny blade. Gore to follow. Even movies whose point is not really to show blood still have people suffering and the crowd cheering. Haneke shows us how inherently absurd this is, not by indulging in the material, but the thoroughly questioning it, overturning rules right and left and never once accepting predictability or exploitation.

Funny Games is difficult to watch. Even I, who am accustomed to movies like the Saw franchise, was squirming in my seat uncomfortably. What was happening in the film is never once fun, it’s a chore to work through, and it’s not like the kind of chore where you’re doing something to pass the time – it’s the sort of chore where you just sit and almost hate what’s happening. I could never bring myself to hate it, though, simply because of how marvelously constructed everything is, from the acting, to the set design, to the shot-for-shot way it was remade. It’s an excellent film through and through, but it’s not for everybody. Many critics are questioning the necessity of a remake from Haneke’s 1998 film, as it seems merely indulgent and kind of pointless. My response to that would be that no person who needs to see this film to understand the gratuity and senseless violence of the Saw and Hostel franchises would ever go out and rent Haneke’s 1998 Funny Games. It’s exactly where it needs to be right now, and is the most thought-provoking and challenging film in theatres right now.

Family Guy Vs. The Simpsons

Posted in Uncategorized with tags , , , , , on March 8, 2008 by Brandon

I have a confession to make. I absolutely love Family Guy. It is my second favorite show that’s on broadcast television after The Office. My third favorite show is Heroes, and the fourth is Lost. Most conscientious and intelligent television viewers will agree that, whether or not they like any of these particular shows, that they’re worth watching. Except Family Guy. Or, more specifically, it has become the popular and almost overriding opinion that if you like Simpsons, you can’t possibly think that Family Guy is any better, or else you must be suffering from some delusion. It seems that even some Family Guy fans have succumbed to this delusion, including myself for awhile, which is quite sad and unfortunate, because there’s no need for this happen, and here is the reason why: Family Guy is just as good, or possibly even better, than the Simpsons.

Yes, I consider myself an intelligent human being and I am making this statement in full awareness of its implications. Some of you out there may even have just labeled me as some kind of ignorant freak who can’t possibly be taken seriously. After all, everyone knows that The Simpsons is better than Family Guy, right?

Well, not this character, so let’s examine why, by looking at two points that address those jabs made against the Guy of Families. Before I begin, I would like to state that even though I do not follow The Simpsons regularly, I really do appreciate their show, and some of their stuff is just unbelievably witty. They are a revolutionary show, almost the first of their kind, and definitely one of the most unique and long-lasting on television. So, with that in mind, know that I have no qualms against The Simpsons (TS) and am merely defending Family Guy (FG), not bashing them inherently, though some of my finer points may seem like that to someone who is not paying attention to the details of the argument.

1. Family Guy is not a knockoff of The Simpsons
This argument has several levels of permutations, so let’s address all of them, and start from the beginning. You’ll forgive me for needing to go through the most pedestrian of the arguments to reach the better ones, but such specificity is needed if the core argument is to be completely dismissed, as I believe it should be. Here we go.

A. FG is a cartoon. TS is a cartoon. TS came first. Therefore, FG is unoriginal. This argument is only valid insofar as it shows that FG probably would not have existed without TS. TS was a revolutionary show, and had unprecedented success as a prime time network animated series. Its success gave the networks courage to allow other cartoon series on the air. Before TS, though, there were shows like The Jetsons and The Flintstones, so if you’re going to blame FG for being unoriginal because it’s a cartoon, you have to do the same to TS.

B. FG features an oafish father, a caring and concerned but sometimes ludicrous mother, a teenage son, a daughter, a baby, and a dog. TS features nearly an identical cast of characters. TS came first, so therefore FG is unoriginal.
This argument comes slightly closer to refuting FG, but can quickly be seen to, upon closer inspection, fail spectacularly. Once again, let’s start simple, by analyzing the cast of FG characters and disproving the accusation that they are nothing more than thinly veiled TS prototypes. As someone who is fairly familiar with the characters from both shows, I feel myself competent enough to cast fair judgment on this part. First of all, there’s Peter Griffin. Nobody who knows both shows can, in good conscience, or even common sense, assert with any sense of conviction that Homer and Peter are the same, because they are completely different. Peter Griffin is, how to say, an amorphous idiot. He follows his idiocy where ever it may go; he’ll drop family loyalties in a heartbeat to save his own skin, and he’s just downright stupid. Homer Simpson is someone who has very strong family loyalties, has only in the last five or sex years tended more toward becoming an idiot, and is for a large part merely a jerk in a lot of ways. The only real similarity between him and Peter is that they do stupid things, but if you are going to use this as a defense for FG being a rip-off then, once again, you must claim TS as a rip-off as well for not being the first show to portray a father as an idiot. Secondly, there’s Maggie and Stewie. Let’s think. Maggie has only spoken one word in the entire near-twenty year history of The Simpsons: sequel. Stewie has a British accent. Maggie really holds no ill-will towards her family, whereas Stewie calls Peter “the fat man” and is always looking to kill Lois, and has a potentially gay love affair with his teddy bear Rupert. Thirdly, there’s Chris and Bart. Bart is a wiley, smart, and clever scoundrel who is almost always looking for trouble, is know at school as the troublemaker, calls his father “Homer” and generally marches to the beat of his own drum. Chris is somewhat like his father, Peter Griffin, in that he is an idiot, but he’s more of a loveable one – and Bart could kick his ass in a fight. Fourth, there’s Meg and Lisa. Meg is the outcast of the Griffin family, generally hated and treated as more of a dog than the actual dog. She’s not particularly smart, almost always depicted as ugly, and take the brunt of a lot of jokes. Lisa is smart, educated, wise beyond her years, and is quite loved by her family for the most part. Fifth, there’s the dog. Brian is an experienced drinker, carries around a martini with him almost at all times, is educated and hangs out with the New Yorker crowd, and is working on a novel. The dog in the Simpsons has never really spoken a word, doesn’t hold a consistent presence on the show, and is more there to exhibit the token American family dog than anything else. It also sometimes serves merely as a reminder of Homer’s incompetence. And finally, Lois and Marge. Lois is a wild cookie, a sometimes drug-obsessed, dangerously insane woman, sometimes the most calm voice in the room, sometimes the most cruel. She’s something of a wild card, where as Marge is much, much more stable, and only in the rarest of cases does she veer from her fairly set character. So those are the characters, mainly served up for the purpose of those deluded few who could still claim that the characters are freakishly similar. But hey, if Seth MacFarlane were smart enough, he could easily read up on his Simpsons homework and just switch a few key details to cover his tracks, so this is not enough to help to prove FG’s originality. We gotta move on further.

C.The basic premise of the FG show is strikingly similar to TS’s. TS came before, so therefore FG is unoriginal and a mere copycat.
Anyone claiming FG’s cast is unoriginal is obviously not in any way familiar with the conventions and limitations of a little something called the situation comedy, or sitcom for short. Yes that’s right. The argument most often cited for how the cast is unoriginal is Peter Griffin’s comparisons to Homer Simpson. “They’re both idiotic fathers, see! It must be a rip-off!” If you look at any 80’s 90’s sitcom, or heck, any early 00’s sitcom, you will have no shortage of these kinds of fathers. I’m not going to do the research for you, but you do some similar grab-bag searching around the dumpster that is most sitcoms, you’ll find similar kinds of characters for Lois, Brian, Meg, Chris, and even diabolical Stewie. You’ll find the same for Homer, Marge, Bart, Lisa, and Maggie. And you’ll find one thing in common between the two of them – they both represent kind of an ideal nuclear family, three kids, two parents, a stable home, and a dog, which, once again, many sitcoms do. Because FG is a cartoon, and there are fewer prime time cartoons out there than live action shows, the similarity is more glaringly obvious, but the heart of my argument remains the same. Before we move on, though I must address a potential issue that could be raised against my argument, the idea that TS was in fact original in many ways, and FG isn’t. But let’s look at whose fault this is. Is it FG’s fault, or TS’s, for that matter, that one was created ten years before the other? Of course not. You operate with the clichés and conventions you have in place at the time, and nothing more. You can’t blame FG for not being as revolutionary or world-changing. It was made in a time when many conventions of the sitcom were already established. Considering what MacFarlane does on FG in terms of lampooning many ideas of the traditional American family, if seems plausible, and even likely, that he chose the nuclear family as his form of expression to do precisely that. Could TS have influenced him? It’s almost impossible that it didn’t. But claiming that this renders FG completely unoriginal is like claiming that just because Richard Dawkins dedicated his book to Douglas Adams that means he owes his entire thesis to the comedic writer. The kind of show that TS was only comes along once every fifty years or so, and you can’t impinge upon FG to live up to every expectation that you had about TS. Two different shows, two different sets of expectations. Let’s move on.

D. Some episodes of FG closely mirror those of TS. It is obvious MacFarlane is watching TS to get cheap knockoff ideas.
Do a search on youtube and you’ll quickly find videos where they supposedly show irrefutable proof of an FG episode stealing something from a TS episode. A cursory examination of these videos also lets them be dispelled as evidence against FG, because of how far-fetched most of them are and because there are TS videos that supposedly copy off of FG too. So who’s right? Both? Neither? I submit that it doesn’t matter. Creative people feed off each other; they get idea from each other. And to claim that it is impossible for two people to have the same idea is a little naïve. Scott Adams, the cartoonist for Dilbert, wrote, in a book he published, a story about how he was planning on writing a strip where he made fun of an opera singer called “The Placebo Domingo.” Before the strip even got sent to his editor, a comic strip making that exact same joke appeared. People do have the same ideas. And if you’re still in doubt, there’s doubt about who flew the first plane. Of course Americans like to think it’s the Wright Brothers, but in France they also had the idea of flying and supposedly flew the first plane over there too. In a similar vein, is it so preposterous that two people, both working on animated shows on Fox, should come up with similar ideas once in awhile?

2. Family Guy is funny, clever, and smart
Before I go into the bulk of this argument, something I find delightfully contradictory in FG haters logic is how they despise the “flashback”-humor of FG.They bash and bash and bash on FG for its supposed lack of originality (which, as we have seen above, I have disproved), and then turn around and bash and bash and bash on FG for how its humor fails so spectacularly at mimicking TS’s humor. Interesting, don’t you think, this contradiction? So there’s one mark against the FG haters. Let’s move on. In an episode of the devilishly clever South Park, one of the main characters, Cartman, made a visit to the FG writers room, which ended up being nothing more than manatees bouncing “idea” balls into random tubs, from which the writers would come up with flashback jokes. The episode was hilarious, as South Park always is, but let’s address the issue of “flashback humor.” In the episode, Cartman says to his friends that he is appalled that they thought he liked FG, because his humor is always contextual, and not random. This, of course, implies that things that are truly funny can only be those that are complete and utterly relevant to the moment; ergo, the flashbacks that FG is so famous for aren’t funny, and so FG as a show must not be funny, ergo it must be a bad show and only worth watching to those whose IQ is too low to appreciate TS’s brand of humor. Well, I myself would like to think I appreciate TS’s humor on several levels that would indicate a nice IQ on my behalf, so I will demonstrate several massive fallacies with this notion. The first and most obviously fallacious untruth is that FG operates solely on the basis on this humor. Sometimes the show does use it too much, often to cover up a weak understory, but this is an occasional weakness and not a terminal flaw. I have noticed that the last two or three episodes have considerably lightened up on the flashbacks, much to my relief. FG in fact does offer biting satire and scathing wit on a variety of different subjects outside of the flashback technique. I just finished watching an episode where there was some strong social commentary on the ridiculous money that the wealthy have, and none of that came from flashbacks. Another thing that FG does amazingly well is portray the almost uncapturable essence of the awkwardness of everyday life. Every single episode seems to contain a moment that you can almost picture yourself in, it feels so incredibly and awkwardly real. The second fallacy says that these flashbacks are not funny. What evidence is given? Well, obviously, the evidence is that its not like the scathing wit and satire that TS and South Park give in a weekly basis. Because it’s different, it must be poorer. Let’s examine this logic for just a brief second, for kicks. Different is worse? Take this even one step further or beyond the context of television sitcomery and you’ve landed yourself in a world of hurt that will require a lot of explanation. Even keep it within that world and you’ve got a problem. The Office and South Park both operate on completely different kinds of humor, yet most wise television waters would agree objectively that they are both funny; hilarious even. FG makes people laugh. A LOT of people laugh. It is one of Fox’s consistently top-rated shows, whereas TS is nowhere near the behemoth it once was – it is far past its prime. And as any critic can tell you, comedy is the most difficult genre to decide when it has been done right. I offer up the potential answer that FG is in fact some new kind of comedy that people are not prepared for. Its flashback technique enables it to comment on a variety of subjects at once, and its delicious randomness only further drives home much of its satire. Admittedly some jokes fall flat, but can you say that every single joke in TS history has been a solid hit? Not unless you’re some kind of dunderhead, you can’t. Even some of the shows greatest fans admit that their favorite season are not the first few, but rather the four or five after them. It’s also easy to criticize the flashback technique and say it’s too easy and random to put together, but let’s take a look at South Park to disband this myth. Trey Parker and Matt Stone are two brilliant comedic writers. I love South Park. Some of the social and even sometimes political commentary in that series astounds me with how well-pointed it is. And I’m in good company with thinking this. Many film and television critics admire South Park for its unabashed brand of making fun of EVERYTHING, and being damn good at it too. Needless to say, these are no spring chickens. They know what they’re doing. If that’s the case, then how come, when they lampoon flashbacks specifically in the above-mentioned episode, the jokes fall flat? There are at least six instances in that two-parter episode that show a spoof of an FG flashback, and none of them are funny, ever. Someone who is eager to hate FG will laugh at them, but only an inexperienced member of the television viewing audience will do this, not one who is acquainted with TS, SP, and FG. It’s easy to call the flashbacks stupid and completely random, but there’s a certain artfulness to them that’s difficult to match, even by the geniuses Parker and Stone. And a hallmark of all great comedians is that they are able to laugh at themselves, and FG never wastes an opportunity to do so, consistently self-spoofing even in the midst of an episode.

If you’ll recall, my initial aim was to prove that FG was just as good, if not better, than TS. I think I’ve proved the former, but I would challenge anyone to prove the latter without the benefit of fifteen years hindsight to help FG out. Die Hard fans will of course choose TS, simply because they like it better; it’s more comfortable to them. And there’s nothing wrong with TS. It is an excellent beyond excellent show, and many people, knowing full well the benefits FG does offer, conscientiously choose TS. There’s not yet a real answer to the question of which is better (and there may not ever be), but there is an answer to the accusation that FG sucks, and I just gave it to you. Thoughts?

My Picks for 2007

Posted in Uncategorized on February 25, 2008 by Brandon
Well, the moment is finally here, where I unveil what my favorites and not-so-favorites of 2007 were. I’m sure you were all waiting with baited breath for this list, so before I go into it, I’m gonna say a few things. I try to make this list objective, but as any critic knows, taste comes into play when reviewing movies. I truly believe that there are good and bad movies, but when making a top 15, I’m more likely to pick a film I liked than admired. What ended up making the top 15 made it because of a combination of quality and how memorable it was. For example, IMO, Dragon Wars: D-War was pretty dang memorable, but that will never in a million years make my best of the year, simply because it’s absolute crap. Here’s a preliminary explanation of the categories.
The Moments: This is a new category in addition to 2006’s, designed to honor the moments in film in 2007 that made my heart leap, stop, cry, break, or cheer. They’re the kind of moments that you keep thinking about even after you’ve left the theater. These may contain spoilers, but if they do, it won’t be anything big.
The Disappointments: For some reason or another, whether it be an idiotic studio exec, a cocky director, or just plain bad acting, a movie often sinks under its own weight and doesn’t even come close to living up to its reputation. Some of these films may actually be quite good in their own right, but when compared to other factors surrounding its inception, fall short.
The Underdogs: This category is to honor those films that may not necessarily have been excellent from a purely objective standpoint, but deserve to be honored for how well they trumped expectations and gave us something that was actually good. No, you will not find “Underdog” in here.The Bad: This category is pretty self-explanatory. Films that make it in here have to be pretty awful. The films in the list are seriously lacking anything good or worthwhile in terms of filmmaking.The Honorable Mentions: Films that make it in here are ones that I could not bring myself to put in my top fifteen, either because they didn’t mean that much to me personally or because I don’t believe they’re good enough to be in the top fifteen. But they’re still excellent films and every single one that made this list should, I believe, be required viewing for anyone who went to the movies in 2007.

The Best: Once again, self-explanatory. These films are just plain awesome. They impressed and moved me more than any other films in 2007, and I believed they demonstrated best what makes good filmmaking, and in some cases, controversial filmmaking.

I saw 103 films that came out this year, so let’s get to it. Without further ado, the awards go to….

The Moments

5. Shoot ‘Em Up: Carrot In The Head

Though the rest of the film did not live up to this gloriously bloody opener, it nonetheless certainly stuck in my head as one of the most memorable moments of 2007 (pun intended). It’s the perfect combination of violence, gross-out, and bad ass-ness. In the scene, Clive Owen uses a carrot to kill somebody by shoving it into his mouth and through the back of his skull. The implausibility of the scenario only adds to its charm.
4. Live Free or Die Hard: Car Crash

If there was any doubt left that John McClane was truly back and just as BA as when he left, the doubt collapsed in on itself when he crashed that car into the helicopter. It was a glorious moment, for several reasons, the most obvious of which was that stunt work was back. CGI had been quickly gaining ground, but this film helped to show studios that audiences still love a good old fashioned stunt show, and this moment in movie history was instrumental in providing that.

3. Superbad: McLovin

Teen movies now have a new phrase. Ten years down the road, when high school movies are being made for teens, it would not surprise me at all that a regular cliché will become the name “McLovin.” It rings true from the moment Michael Cera’s character reads it off Fogel’s new driver’s license. “McLovin’?” he blubbers. “Who are you, Seal?” The name carries the movie, drawing laughs at every turn and never growing old. It’s hard to believe we once lived in a world without McLovin’. That’s how you know it’s an instant classic.

2. Juno: Feeling the Baby Kicking
A more touching moment did not exist in all of 2007. When Juno randomly meets the person who’s going to be the mother of her child in the mall, it’s a character whom the audience is as yet uncertain about. But when you see the pure joy wash over her face as the baby kicks deep inside Juno’s swollen belly, it’s difficult not to cry along with her. I’ve never seen such a single moment define a movie. It shatters what we thought about that character beforehand, overturns our expectations, and sets them on a new course. Jennifer Garner deserves major kudos for that scene. It is fantastic.
1. 300: This is Sparta!
To leave the fanboy favorite of 300 completely off this list would be something akin to a tragedy, so here is its appearance. When the messenger from Persia came to give Leonidas the message (that’s what messengers do, I suppose), there was a second of terror on his face as he mumbled, “This is madness!” Then Leonidas, played by the charismatic Gerard Butler, spoke THE cultural catchphrase of 2007: “This is Sparta!” A shove of the foot in slow motion sent the poor old messenger dude into the black pit, and from his death rose a chorus of “This is Sparta!!” from around the US by fanboys and just plain old moviegoers alike. There’s little doubt this takes the cake as the top moment of 2007. “This is madness!” you say. “Madness?” I reply. “This is SPARTA!”
The Disappointments
5. The Kite Runner
The novel was a blockbuster success, so of course you knew it was going to get turned into a movie. Even though Marc Forster’s vision of the novel wasn’t a complete flop, it failed to capture all the cultural subtleties of the novel and gave us a generic “inspiro-pic” that far too often didn’t explain itself and whose characters and story were cookie-cutter perfect. Even the violence wasn’t shocking – it was boring.
4. Bee Movie
This movie can be summed up in just a couple of words. “Haha, bees!” With little else to say except, “Look at me!”, Seinfeld’s latest outing was not only a disappointment, it was just kind of dull. Yes, it’s full of trademark Seinfeldian humor, and if that’s your thing, you’ll probably laugh your butt off. But this doesn’t necessarily make it a good movie. The characters were all bland, the animation was competent but unimaginative, and the tension between kiddie film and adult commentary did not work at all. Seinfeld should have taken lessons from Brad Bird.
3. 28 Weeks Later
This film is still better than most other horror movies out there, but that doesn’t keep it from falling far short of the greatness of the original. Danny Boyle’s vision of a futuristic bloody London was actually good because it revamped the zombie genre and gave us real characters instead of horror archetypes. In this stylish sequel, we’re back to the old horror standby of people doing unbelievably stupid things and causing chaos. It keeps on happening throughout the movie, these people are so unbelievably stupid. The film also never seems to know where to to go with itself, so it almost literally runs around in circles, and by the end I didn’t really care who lived or died. I am curious to see what they’ll do with 28 Months Later, though.
2. Shrek the Third
The reason Shrek was so brilliant when it first came out was because it skewered the mass marketing advertising culture of Disney, saying, “Hey, look, your films are crap lately! Make them good!” Years down the line, it’s almost tragic to see the green ogre stand as the very symbol of the consumer culture he was satirizing. Though it was hilarious in places, the franchise has become bloated with its own import. Puss in Boots has become a, well, you know, and Eddie Murphy was probably filming Norbit when he phoned in this voice work.
1. Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix
I’ve heard some critics call this the most adroit of the series in interpreting the book, but when you look at the pure facts, this received the worst critical ratings of all five movies, and for good reason. Director David Yates’s take on the story eliminated all the subtleties that made the otherwise overly long book bearable. The finale is a ridiculous clash with meaningless spells flying around in the dark, important characters are disposed of with nary an explanation to where they went, and a lot of the acting is disappointing and cliched, though thankfully Daniel Radcliffe turns in his best performance yet. Here’s hoping that Yates is NOT chosen to direct Deathly Hallows, and that he does a better job with Half-Blood Prince.
The Underdogs
5. Music & Lyrics
This syrupy sweet sap fest had all the makings of a crappy early year by-the-numbers romantic comedy, and it was, but the surprising thing was that it ended up actually being fun. Hugh Grant and Drew Barrymore’s chemistry is excellent, and the songs are the perfect combination of pop cheese and self-importance. This is a romantic comedy that knows how to make a romantic comedy.
4. Disturbia
For the first hour of Disturbia, it’s difficult to look away from the screen. This stylish update and homage to Hitchock’s “Rear Window” and voyeurism knew how to up the tension without copping out with cheap scares, which is why it’s so sad when the last half hour devolves into predictable slasher mania. Nevertheless, despite the fall from grandeur, it’s riveting and much better than expected, and Shia LeBoeuf shows he knows how to act incredibly well, effortlessly carrying that elusive everyman persona that Tom Hanks has perfected.
3. Bridge to Terabithia
The silly little trailers made it look like it would be some cheesy fairy tale land adventure with nary a regard to the source or what made it so powerful. The movie, however, thankfully skimped on the fantasy and focused on the tragedy and warmth and reality of the characters. What emerged was a surprisingly compelling story and an elegantly faithful adaptation of the novel.
2. Enchanted
Amy Adams captures the title in a wonderful performance that perfectly channels the classic Disney princesses. The story is surprisingly good, the songs are scene-stealing excellence, even though the Academy has favored them too much in their nominations, and the special effects are first rate. But the best part about it all is how much it played with the genre and ideas of happy endings. It’s one of the most delightful pictures of the year.
1. Live Free or Die Hard
John McClane is back and as bad a motherf***er as ever in this excellent update of the series that’s the best since the first. This one, in a similar way to “Rocky Balboa” last year, overturned all expectations and proceeded to soundly smack them in the face with an exploding helicopter. Towards the end of the movie they get too preoccupied with CGI, and one wonders why he didn’t say his famous line, as according to MPAA rules, PG-13 films can still get away with saying the F-word once. Eh, there’s an unrated version of DVD, though, so it’s all good. 🙂
The Bad
5. Happily N’Ever After
“From the producers of Shrek!” the posters proudly proclaimed. Well, based on this film, choosing Shrek was a complete fluke on their part, because no trace of hilarity can be found anywhere in the entire picture. It’s another fractured fairy tale, only with none of the wit, imagination or satire that made Shrek such a household name. The animation is bland, the characters are boring, and Andy Dick is one of the voices. Yeah. It’s bad. I think the producers of Shrek should be put down.
4. Epic Movie
You know it’s a year for bad films when Epic Movie is only fourth on the list. This film was made by the guys who did “Date Movie” and “Meet the Spartans,” and it seems like they’re getting progressively worse. Soon they may even overtake Uwe Boll as the worst filmmakers in Hollywood. They seem to believe that all that you need for humor is to stick random pop culture references in wherever you can. It never, EVER works. This film is a bore, a dull chore from beginning to end. I was prepared to simply laugh at stupid humor, but this is beyond even that. It’s boring. The absolute worst kind of humor there is.
3. The Number 23
In the original poster for this film, it shows Jim Carrey with random crap scribbled all over his face. Next to his mouth is a speech bubble that says, “Help!” I’m convinced he’s pleading for his career. This film was a contrived mess. Movies being psychological do not make them good. Movies being stylish do not make them good. Right combinations of these two, and other elements, can really help a film, but the Number 23 is confusing, pointless, and idiotic. The ending can’t decide what to do with itself, Carrey’s acting is schizophrenic even by the rules of his own character, and the whole “Number 23” thing is a gimmick. And I can’t take it as a joke, because of all the ads with Jim Carrey ominously telling us how evil The Number 23 is. There’s nothing evil or mysterious about the number 23. You can literally pick any number in the world and find it everywhere. The number 23 is third place in my worst movies list, and it came out in february which is the second month of the year! Two and three is 23! Gaaah!
2. Good Luck Chuck
I’m sorry, but this movie wasn’t funny. Not even close. You just kind of sit there, stunned that anyone, ANYONE would actually find this funny. It’s gross, crude, pointless, idiotic, and Dane Cook is just so dang creepy. Jessica Alba is her usual vapid self, and HAHAHA SHE’S A KLUTZ HAHA OMGZ SO FUNNY. There’s no depth to these characters, the portrayal of women is offensive and stupid, and I don’t need to see a shot of sixteen different screens of Dane Cook having sex with sixteen different women. Now my brain is half scarred because of Dane Cook’s buttocks.
1. The Heartbreak Kid
When I first saw the trailer for this, five or six months before it came out, I said to myself the basic plotline of the movie, from beginning to end. I did not miss a beat. This, in itself, though, is not necessarily a horrible thing. But when combined with the putrid mess of the film, it’s hard to imagine worse. I’m not easily offended by movies. I’m one of the few who liked Chuck & Larry, and Borat was one of my top five last year. But I was offended by this. Ben Stiller is a complete douchebag, yet we’re supposed to sympathize with him. They make the wife completely hateable just so it seems okay that he doesn’t want to be with her anymore, and much of the storyline feels like it belongs in a sitcom. And some of the humor is simply unspeakably crude. As if that weren’t enough, the ending drags on and on and on and on for thirty or forty minutes to give us closure to characters WE DON’T EVEN GIVE A DAMN ABOUT. Maybe the Farrelly Brothers should be executed along with those Shrek producer dudes.
The Honorable Mentions
5. Gone Baby Gone
This film is for anyone who completely lost faith in Ben Affleck after Gigli, Paycheck, and Jersey Girl. Oh wait, that was all of us. Well, all the more reason you should see “Gone Baby Gone”, which is actually a fairly straightforward crime thriller, but director Affleck proves he learned a lot being in front of the camera over the course of his career, and he knows how to make a solid cop drama. His brother Casey Affleck also turns in a performance that floors anything poor old Ben ever did.
4. No End in Sight
The more documentaries I see like this, the more I realize how much Michael Moore is an idiot. For one, because the films he makes aren’t so much a balanced and even-sided exploration of the subject, but more contrived and made-up screaming without much attention to stupid little things like facts, for another, because there’s enough evidence against the Bush administration without him making stuff up, and finally, because his hate for Bush clouds everything and very often gets in the way of him being unbiased on a subject. “No End in Sight” is a riveting and important documentary that Michael Moore should be required to sit and watch like that dude in “A Clockwork Orange” who had his eyes forced open so he could not blink or look away. It’s never embellishing, reporting the facts in a cold hard manner and driving the point straight home to our hearts. Sobering, smart, and moving, it is excellent.
3. The Host
It’s doubtful you’ll see a more weirdly unique film all year, or for that matter, it’s doubtful you’ve EVER seen a film quite like it. Never have I watched a film that was so daring in combining so many different elements, from horror drama to family drama to melodrama to political intrigue, to science fiction shlock, to comedy, and many many many others. It’s a twisted, bold, and unique weird-out fest that will have you shaking your head in amazement by the time it’s over. A must for any fan of Asian cinema, or even horror cinema. In fact, this may be the only film I saw all year that everybody needs to see to believe.
2. The Diving Bell and the Butterfly
The best thing about this movie how much it refuses to be your typical sob story. Director Julian Schnabel never asks us to feel sorry for the main character. He simply presents the story in a spectacularly moving way, and the pitch-perfect cinematography and deeply nuanced voice of the main actor all serve to make us really feel as if we are trapped inside Jean-Do’s body with him. The fact that it’s based on a true story, as well, makes it all the more fascinating.
1. God Grew Tired of Us
In the same vein of The Diving Bell and the Butterfly, this is not one of those films that’s designed to make us feel depressed and guilty over the tragedy of the Lost Boys. It’s a tale of culture shock, integration, loneliness, companionship, brotherhood, as well as a none-too-subtle jab at America’s loner consumer culture. The film is hilarious at times, tragic at others, and always powerful. It’s one of the best movies of its kind.
The Best
15. Sweeney Todd: the Demon Barber of Fleet Street
Since the disastrous Planet of the Apes remake, which soundly failed with critics, it seems Burton had moved to the backstage of Hollywood. “Big Fish” was overlooked, “Charlie and the Chocolate Factory” was over-hyped, and the recent “Corpse Bride” drew positive reviews, but most of them acknowledged that it was fairly predictable. With Sweeney Todd, though, Burton returns to glorious bloody form in a wickedly dark story where Johnny Depp sizzles in his role as the murderous barber. The music is haunting and perfect, the production design is cleverly dark, and the entire film flows like an excellent somber melody. It’s one of the more unique films of 2007.
14. Persepolis
This story was powerful, emotionally charged, and culturally aware, something that “Kite Runner” was severely lacking. It throws into harsh relief how much most American filmmakers suck at making movies about that area of the world, and it’s a perfect translation of the graphic novel, the kind that uses the medium of film to transform it appropriately, while also remaining faithful and elegant in relation to its source. The storyline is compelling, the protagonist is smart and interesting without being annoyingly arrogant (er-hem, Lyra in The Golden Compass), and the whole movie works so well weaving all the different stories of the revolutionary war in Iran, her coming of age, her exile in in Europe, her displacement, and so on. It’s a marvelous little gem of the film. Shame on the Academy for ignoring it in the Best Foreign Language category.
13. Sunshine
When Danny Boyle revamped the zombie genre, it revolutionized the entire thing. It was a near work of genius, with excellently done social commentary, a gripping storyline, and terror that rose from human interaction and evil and not cheap scares and blood. Sunshine does for space movies what Boyle did for zombie ones. Admittedly it’s not as revolutionary, but that’s okay. Besides, right now science fiction seems to be in a kind of decline and it’s probably why this movie was overlooked and under-advertised. It’s gloriously haunting, the acting is good, and the special effects are the most dazzling I saw all year. It’s an homage to all those space films, while remaining a great one in its own right. The social commentary in this one isn’t as well thought out as it was in 28 Days Later, but it’s still a very fascinating story.
12. The King of Kong: A Fistful of Quarters
Who would have thought watching people playing a game that’s over twenty years old could be so entertaining and enlightening? King of Kong overturns our expectations of what a documentary should be like, while at the same time providing an illuminating look into the lives of extreme gamers. It’s a film that works on many different levels, from the praise of good sportsmanship to the cautionary tale of what obsession can do to a person, in any form. People who look at this movie on the surface will probably hate it, but once you dig just slightly deeper you’ll find a surprisingly compelling story. It’s also flat-out hilarious, because everyone in this world takes these things so seriously. Even if you’re not part of video game culture at all, which I am, though not so much retro games, chances are you’ll find this interesting.
11. The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford
The acting in this film is unparalleled with anything else I saw this year. Brad Pitt gives the best performance he’s given in a long, long, long time, and Casey Affleck, who for years has been living undeservedly in his brother Ben’s shadow, finally breaks out with a role so nuanced, intricate, and complex that it’s really difficult to see any acting going on. That’s not Casey Affleck in the scene, that’s Robert Ford. The film explores the cost of fame, hero worship, the death of both, the acquisition of knowledge, and the danger of pride. It’s not a film to sit through right before bed; chances are you’ll fall asleep, as the dialogue is very sparse and very specific. But it’s so dang good. The cinematography is also glorious and breathtakingly beautiful, perfectly capturing the Old West. None of these characters ever seem like celebrities; they’re all very real, and very, very interesting.
10. No Country for Old Men
I’ve never seen a Coen Brothers film, and perhaps that makes me unqualified to judge this movie, but it doesn’t change the fact that this is one of the most riveting and intense movies of the year, and it has me salivating for more of their films. The atmosphere, mood, characters, plot, setting, and dialogue all work in tandem to bring about the conclusion. There’s barely a second of wasted space in the whole thing. Tommy Lee Jones is superb as the old sheriff, Josh Brolin is excellent as the poor man who happened to stumble onto 2 million dollars, and, of course, Javier Bardem is truly frightening as the ruthless killer who embodies everything that is wrong with “young people” today, as Jones puts it. It’s a terrifying performance, to say the least, and all the actors complement themselves in a whole that is about as seamless as I’ve ever seen. The Texas cinematography is sweeping, epic, oxymoronically claustrophobic, and deadly. There are also some of the most breathless chase scenes that you’ll ever see in a movie. It’s a terrific film.
9. Juno
You’d be hard pressed to find another film this year that has had such a wide gap between its lovers and its haters. Try to find someone who’s seen it who doesn’t either love it or hate it. They exist, but they’re very rare. Why did this film have audiences so divided? It all depends on who you ask, but for my vote, Juno is one of the best movies of the year. No other movie this year had me change my mind so completely about it thirty minutes in. We are presented with an array of characters, and like most moviegoers, we peg them for who we think they are. Over the course of the last hour of the film, every single one of those expectations is turned on their heads, as the script and acting flesh out these characters beautifully. Jason Bateman and Jennifer Garner as the couple dazzle the most; their characters are the most deep and the most complex, and when they’re first introduced they seem like the most shallow. None of the characters are easy reads; many of Juno’s detractors have simply stamped them as one-dimensional blobs, but that’s because, just like in real life, you have to LOOK for the details, you have to get to know them YOURSELF, and the movie refuses to do it for you. Yeah, sure, Juno wisecracks a little bit too much, but that doesn’t change that this movie is one of the most surprising and best films of the year.
8. Paris, Je T’aime
Translated literally as “Paris, I Love You,” this homage to the city of love, composed of eighteen different shorts from twenty one directors, is as excellent a collection of short films as I’ve ever seen. Another collection of shorts that came out earlier in the year, “The Ten,” was dull, boring, unimaginative, and, at the heart, really had nothing to do with the Ten Commandments at all, which was supposedly its subject. THIS film, though, is an excellent tribute to one of the most famous and romantic cities in the world. Though there are a few misfires, taken as a whole, they all beautifully encompass the theme, and each vignette is a perfect glimpse into the life of a Parisian (or two). It never feels disjointed or contrived. It’s also pretty cool that they got such a variety of names as the Coen Brothers, Wes Craven, Alfonso Cuaron, and Gerard Depardieu on board to direct. No two shorts are alike, as we see everything from a gay love story, to a vampire one, to a mother and child, all the way to a couple of mimes. It’s enchanting and creative filmmaking at its best, and you can tell every single one of the directors is having a fantastic time. Elijah Wood, Bob Hoskins, Natalie Portman, and others, all make appearances too, and they each bring their own brand of acting into play seamlessly with the short they’re in. It’s charming, sweet, not too long, not too short, and it ends on just exactly the right note.
7. Once
Before I saw this movie, I had heard of the critical ratings, but I was still pretty skeptical. Because I don’t know much about music, I didn’t expect to really get anything out of this film other than an appreciation for how well it was made. Though I did end up getting the latter, I got so much more on top of that. Once is the most purely emotional movie of 2007. The love story between the two protagonists is never easily pegged, the music is enriching, soulful, and true, the camera-work is harsh and real, and the characters themselves are so likeable while remaining so true that you never really think of them as two actors, even though the actors do a superb job. The songs can’t be described here, you’ll have to see it to really understand, but suffice it to say that you probably won’t leave Once without feeling some of the pain and joy that these characters went through. It’s the perfect movie about the way music can bring two people together in a close personal bond that is part friendship and part lover. A superb film.
6. Southland Tales
Warning: watching this movie may cause you to want rip your eyes out in frustration. It almost made me do it. You could be next! Richard Kelly’s follow-up to the mega surprise hit of Donnie Darko had critics very divided. Most everybody called it an incoherent mess, and they’re absolutely right, but the genius of this film is that it needs to be a mess to communicate its message. Kelly is an ambitious and visionary filmmaker, and his vision of the future is hilarious and terrifying at the same time. The actors all turn in excellent work, from the surprisingly comedically talented Dwayne “The Rock” Johnson, all the way to the perfectly portrayed self-important soul-dier boy Justin Timberlake, whose scene in a brief music video with the Killers’ “I’ve Got Soul but I’m not a Soldier” steals the entire show. It’s a pop culture-infused, motion-sickness-medication-necessary, mind-blowing apocalyptically and visionarily stunning and hilarious, chaotic meta narrative mish-mash-mess of a thrill ride film that will leave you with your head spinning and either loving it or hating it. Kelly puts in so many layers to his film that it will rack your brain like few other films have ever done, and it speaks to his uncompromising cinematic anarchy. It’s a work of powerful genius that many people may be right in hating, but sometimes that’s what genius does.
5. Hot Fuzz
Comedy does not get nearly enough recognition in the critical world. People realize that it’s one of the most difficult genres to get right, but for some reason when great films like Hot Fuzz come along they’re overlooked because they don’t deal with “important” stuff like the war in Iran or teen pregnancy. It’s a shame, because Hot Fuzz is one of the best movies of 2007. Satirizing a genre that probably needs it the most, action and cop movies, it never misses a beat or a laugh. The filmmakers watched more than one hundred cop movies before creating the film, and it shows, as the entire film is sprinkled with dozens of references to other movies, with two being mentioned by name: Bad Boys II and Point Break. You would think that this would lend itself to heavy-handed and obvious parody, but it’s handled in such a way that it’s hard to imagine the film without these movies mentioned. The acting is superbly done, and it’s a joy to see famous British actors peppering the mix liberally, from an old Bond villain Timothy Dalton, to the respected British actor Jim Broadbent, all the way to a small almost unbelievable cameo by a certain female British star that I won’t spoil simply because spotting it is half the joy. It’s a fun-fueled romp through the world of cop movies, while maintaining a perfectly respectable and interesting story on its own. A lot of satires don’t create characters – they just use the ones that were in the originals. Parts of “Hot Fuzz’s” genius is that it creates an entire believable world whose characters are ones you actually care about. And the final half hour is one of the most jaw-droppingly hilarious bits that I’ve ever seen in a movie. I’ve seen this movie about five times now, and it never gets old. You constantly find new things hidden here and there, and the jokes are so well written and the targets so brilliantly skewered that it’s hard to imagine them ever getting old. But the best part about Hot Fuzz is how much its makers love the genre they’re parodying. You can’t create good parody without loving what you’re doing, and these guys certainly do. It’s easily the funniest movie of the year.
4. Into the Wild
Based on the true story of Chris McCandless, what gives “Into the Wild” its power is easily Emile Hirsch, who plays him. There is such exuberance for life in his eyes that you never really question his decision to get up and go off and actually live the life that so many of us dream of doing but never actually do. I love my little creature comforts, but sometimes it’s easy to get swept away in the wonderful vision or really roughing it, making your own way, creating your own reality, all by yourself, away from all these pesky people. But then reality sets in and you never do it. Chris did, and it’s an awe-inspiring journey as we go across the untouched parts of North America that are so easy to forget. We’re reacquainted with the beauty of the Grand Canyon, the vastness of the deserts, the lushness of the Alaskan wilderness. All the supporting actors do marvelous jobs here too. And by the end of the movie, you’ve been so invested in Chris’s journey that you’re emotionally exhausted. It’s a powerful film about the triumph of the human spirit and the lessons that one learns along the way.
3. There Will Be Blood
Paul Thomas Anderson’s latest is a disturbing and masterful work, a terrifying look into how far down a blackened well the human soul can go. It’s ambitious, grotesque, deeply powerful, at times schizophrenic, manic, calm, quiet, and gritty as all get out. This is only Anderson’s fifth film, but you can bet he’s going to be one of the greatest filmmakers of the 21st century. There are so many layers to this film and so many different possible ways that they can interact that you could watch it about a dozen times and still come away with something new, wondering, “How the HELL did I miss that?” Daniel Day-Lewis as the oil tycoon Daniel Plainview is terrifyingly intense, carrying a deep baritone voice that makes you believe HE sincerely believes in everything he says and does, and it’s a performance that boasts what may be the best performance of the year. He’s a villain through and through, a dark and scary monster of a man with ambition, greed, and power. The film is a deeply religious and philosophical work, too, and all these seemingly disparate elements work together to give us a screechingly twisted epic that must be seen to be believed. It’s awe-inspiring stuff, on the level with some of the greatest films of all time. Grippingly good.
2. Zodiac
This is David Fincher’s best work yet. He directed both the grotesque and compelling “Se7en” and the weird-out metaphysical-fest “Fight Club,” but here he gives us a much more real story anchored in the truth of the infamous Zodiac killings. The film spans several decades, and Fincher has a keen eye for the cultural subtleties of each decade and the various styles, fashions, and fads that come and go. Because of this delicious attention to minute detail, the film is that much more terrifying, a true and cautionary tale about the monsters that haunt our time and the near absurd effect they have. Everybody turns in stellar performances, from the always entertaining Robert Downey Jr, to the skeptic detective Mark Ruffalo, and most notably, the intense newspaper cartoonist Jake Gyllenhall. It’s the best performance of Gyllenhall’s career, as he plays his character true to life and never once acts like he’s in a movie. When he is scared, you can see it deep in his eyes, and you feel that fear too, down to the very marrow of your bone. The clinical precision with which Fincher approaches the story is near-perfect in its execution, making Zodiac a tour-de-force, a chilling and deeply unsettling film that will probably scare you more than any other movie in 2007.
1. Ratatouille
No film impressed me more this year than Ratatouille. It’s the closest to perfect that I saw a movie come this year. The pacing is perfect, the animation is perfect, the story is perfect, the characters are near-perfect, and the whole thing just carries such a delicious aroma that it’s hard to find something I should recommend more. I know many people who are part of the “cartoons are just for kids” department, but I encourage them, and you, if you’re a part of that, to look beyond the superficial and to the true themes that resonate and make Ratatouille so compelling. It’s a tale of the pursuit of excellence, the following of one’s dream, the reconciliation of family, finding one’s place in the world, the refusal to settle for garbage (er-hem, direct-to-DVD-Disney), and much much more. The animation is the best Pixar has ever done, and the best I’ve ever seen period. Everything is so beautifully rendered that each frame of each second of each minute is like a painting by a grand artist, shining with intricacies, a delicate touch, and a soft, warm glow. And what’s probably most impressive about this movie is that it managed to take the idea of a rat in a kitchen and transform it into something beautiful and compelling. Once again, I know many people who said, “Ew, a rat in a kitchen! Gross!” and decided flat-out there that they would not see the movie. Well, don’t be fooled. This is the best reviewed movie of the year for a reason, because it IS the best movie of the year. The voices are all top notch, too, especially Patton Oswalt, who voiced Remy, the main rat. I was very skeptical of Oswalt, but he turned out to be the perfect choice, expertly putting all the nuances into his character necessary to make him into something real. Not to mention Peter O’Toole as the excellently evil Anton Ego, the best cartoon villain to come along since…well, possibly ever. And the food….oh my gosh, the food. You will salivate just looking at the screen. The love for food is conveyed in every single second of this movie, and the beautiful way that it is portrayed makes it all the more mouth-watering. “Ratatouille” is directed by Brad Bird, who also did “The Incredibles” and “The Iron Giant.” When he did both of these excellent films and “Ratatouille” is his masterwork, you know it’s good. Simply divine.