2009 Wrap-Up: Top Ten, Bottom Five

It's that time of year again!
I'm probably not going to see any more movies this year (or at least have time to write on them anyway), so coming up is the 2009 Top Ten and Bottom Five!

But before I do THAT...
Christmas came and went. Unlike my therapeutic Thanksgiving, this holiday felt rushed and manic, at least partially because I'm stressing about my next "big" film project (whatever that means), which we'll be shooting in the next month.
In other news this video got really popular. Roger Ebert even tweeted about it!

Reviews before the big list:
"Bad Lieutenant: Port of Call New Orleans" I'm a die hard Werner Herzog fan, partially because he makes awesome movies, and partially because he does awesome things like rescuing Joaquin Phoenix and shrugging off the fact that he's just been shot. Like all the best directors, even when he makes mistakes his movies are still fascinating (Terry Gilliam fits in this category too). However "Bad Lieutenant" is no such accident. Like Klaus Kinski, Nicholas Cage is a crazy actor who's insanity is the perfect marriage for Herzog's "man-against-the-world" paradigm. To watch "Bad Lieutenant" is to watch two perfectly insane people feed off each other's lunacy to create a perfectly nutty movie. Nicholas Cage has always been an oddball, but too often he comes across as insipid and stupid; a ridiculous fool. Yet Herzog knows HOW to bottle Cage and let him loose, and the results are glorious.
Plus, any movie that spends this much time on fish-eye close-ups of hallucinated iguanas and alligators deserves a medal.

"The Princess & The Frog" (also taking place in New Orleans...hmmm) Like last year's "Bolt" this isn't a Disney classic, but it puts them on the tracks again. I was overjoyed to see such gorgeous hand-drawn animation in theaters once more (I'm not knocking CG animation, but I'd like to live in a world that includes several stop-motion films, several 2-D hand-drawn films, and several 3-D films each year), and the fact that his movie did well makes me hope we'll see a lot more of the animation style I grew up with in the coming years.
A lot of hubbub has been made in the press about this movie showcasing the first black Disney princess, seeing as Walt Disney himself has been accused of being racist in his time (something I personally see as an example of presentism). However I really liked this movie for actually addressing the racism of the time, even if in an indirect way. We see the working-class struggle of Tiana's family, while her upper-crust white best friend lives in the spoiled lap of luxury. Some people griped that the lightning bug was racist, but this is totally unfounded...he's supposed to be CAJUN, not black! And if you're complaining about the use of voodoo black magic, you're missing the point...voodoo is super cool, and it is imbued in that type of southern culture. Finally, I also appreciated this movie for actually giving the prince some personality instead of just being a figurehead.

Sure, the musical numbers aren't as snappy as they could be, and the villain's plot doesn't really come to fruition as much as I wanted it to (especially since he's a really cool-looking bad guy), but all in all it's a fun time, and great to see old-school Disney getting back on track again.

"Avatar" Ohhhh boy. I'm not sure I've ever felt as conflicted over a film as I feel over "Avatar."

I was very skeptical about this movie from the beginning. The previews didn't convince me this would be as earth-shattering as we were led to believe, but BOY was I wrong. The movie is just gorgeous to look at. I saw it midnight in IMAX 3-D (and in regular 3-D a few days later), and from start to finish my jaw was on the floor.

However (especially after the second viewing), the story leaves a lot to be desired. All the characters are very cut-and-dry. The good guys are good. The bad guys are bad. The Na'avi are Native Americans. There are no layers to anything, and least on the script pages (the planet of Pandora, of course, is filled with visual richness).

James Cameron is smarter than this, and he should know better. Or has he just gotten sloppy as he's gotten older? In "Aliens" Burke is a slimeball, but we're still shocked when he takes things to the point that he's willing to kill Ripley and Newt in order to get a live specimen of the alien creature. In "Avatar" we're never surprised when the baddies decide to wipe out the "little blue monkeys"...they've been bigots from the get-go. And even their motivations aren't very complex or creative; they're mining "unobtanium" simply because it can make them a lot of money. Never does it mention what the unobtanium does or why it is needed on Earth. Earlier this year in the exquisite "Moon" there was some interesting moral ambiguity, because the stuff being mined on the moon was solving all of Earth's natural resource problems. Something similar in "Avatar" would have given a little extra layer of complexity to the characters, and at least give some sort of justification as to WHY the marines were willing to shamelessly wipe out an entire population.

And on the good guys' side, the main character Sulley (played by Sam Worthington) never really undergoes a character transformation. From the first scenes where he sets foot in the Pandoran jungle I was thinking, "Holy shit...he's going to want to stay on this planet. It's beautiful!" He has nothing to live for on Earth. No wife, no family...his choice to join the Na'avi at the end of the film is an obvious one. It's mentioned that perhaps he's "betraying humanity" but he's not, because it's never explained what the unobtanium does. He's just betraying a bunch of greedy dudes. Sure, he'll get his legs back I guess, but in order to do what? Sulley is a character who goes through the motions, but never has anything to strive for (and it's not Sam Worthington's fault...he just isn't given anything to work with).

But the most aggravating part of the movie for me were the Na'avi themselves. Aside from looking like standard blue cat people (which were far less imaginative than the anteater-horses, spinning chameleons, rhino-peacock-hammerheads, and day-glo jackals), they are such obvious Native American stereotypes that I found it borderline offensive. If they're going to be Native Americans, fine...but do they have to be such clear-cut Noble Savages? The Na'avi aren't complex characters with their own intricate motives amongst themselves. There's no in-fighting or struggles going on between their tribes that distracts them from the obvious threat of invasion, so why don't they take action? "Avatar" instead just becomes another story of white man's burden.
The fact is, you can HAVE allegory without using stereotypes. This summer's "District 9" was a clear apartheid allegory (with undertones of other conflicts as well), but the aliens didn't walk around and act like a bunch of black people--they acted like aliens! The movie worked on its own terms, but also had extra layers to give it some richness. In spite of all the gorgeous Pandoran scenery, "Avatar" doesn't really feel like its own unique world, removed from our stigmas of Earth. The Na'avi are Native Americans, and that's that.
And the more I think about it, the more I realize how unoriginal the movie is. Yes, everybody has made the obvious "Dances With Smurfs" and "Ferngully in Space" references. But it also smacks heavily of Cameron's superb "Aliens", and the "white-man-leading-the-minority charge" makes me wonder if this wasn't co-directed by Edward Zwick. I've also gotten back into READING a lot of science fiction lately, and the more and more sci-fi I read, the more and more I realize how unoriginal many of my favorite movies turn out to be. "Avatar" definitely calls to mind some novellas and short stories (Poul Anderson's "Call Me Joe" and Alan Dean Foster's "Midworld" if you're keeping track).
But at the same time, did I dislike "Avatar"? Not really. I hate myself for saying this, but at the end of the day all these story issues really didn't matter. The movie is a landmark in special effects. Will it change the face of filmmaking? Probably not too much, since these movies are so expensive and labor-intensive you can only afford one of them every few years. But did it look incredible from start to finish? Did my own real world seem drab and gray after living on Pandora for three hours? Absolutely.
In spite of a few pacing issues (after the interesting "training montage" with the Na'avi, I got a little restless before the final battle, especially during the furry sex), I could have watched another full half hour of them riding around on those dragons (it was disappointing that we never really saw him train the Big Red One). And the final battle of pterodactyls vs. helicopters had me pumping my fist and cheering. Cameron is a genius for coasting over the uncanny valley by creating aliens, unlike Robert Zemeckis and his creepy motion-capture puppet people. Cameron solves the "not-quite-human" issue by creating something that IS not quite human, thus the Na'avi deliver fully realistic, captivating, convincing performances (as...Noble Savages...which is still a script problem...oh well). It still must be said that I never quite got used to Sigourney Weaver's avatar, simply because she's an actress I'm so familiar with, and it was disconcerting to see her as tall(er) and blue.
So yes, you MUST see "Avatar" in a theater, in 3-D, preferably in IMAX. Is it a masterpiece? No. I wanted it to be, but while Cameron never went totally off the rails (ahem...George Lucas), I think he got a little distracted showcasing the technology. At one point in the film the military baddie asks Sulley, "You haven't gotten lost in the woods have ya?" Sadly, I think James Cameron spent so much time creating the Pandora's look that he DID get a little lost.

"A Little Romance" I saw this cute 1970s film with my parents over the break, about two kids living in Paris who run away to Venice in order to kiss under a certain bridge and solidify their love. The acting is a little spotty at times (kids can be difficult to direct), but it's fun to see an older movie about the junior high school age. We get a lot of movies about kids in elementary school, and a lot of movies about high schoolers. But middle school often gets lost in the shuffle, which is too bad. 8th grade-ish is a wonderful age where the innocence is still present, but the hormones are just barely starting to creep in. For me I remember it being the first time I ever starting feeling "real" romantic feelings for a specific person. That's something WAY too important to skip over! So yes, this was a very cute and sweet little film. And it's also fun to see the kind and gentle Laurence Olivier lending a helping hand.

OK...time for the list! As always, there are movies I haven't seen this year that I've been meaning to ("Inglourious Basterds," "Fantastic Mr. Fox," "Up in the Air," "Crazy Heart" for starters). Unlike previous years, I actually got to see some REALLY crappy movies thanks to my job, so a lot of what is on my worst list are actually pretty shitty movies. And some of the stuff in the Top Ten are REALLY close to each other and it was tough to decide on their ranking. There were even a few films I was sad to leave off. OK, enough excuses, here goes!

Top Ten (one being the best)
1. "Up" Animated Indiana Jones/Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, except with old people, flightless birds, and talking dogs. What's not to like? Pixar wins again!
2. "District 9" It makes you think, then rocks your face off. Exactly what good sci-fi should be. Give Sharlto an Oscar!
3. "Bad Lieutenant: Port of Call New Orleans" Nicholas Cage. Drugs. Iguanas. It's poetic insanity.
4. "A Serious Man" I wish they'd make more movies like this. Great storytelling, with REAL actors. One of Joel and Ethan's best.
5. "Cloudy With a Chance of Meatballs" Shockingly hilarious looney tunes-type fun.
6. "The Hurt Locker" A great war movie without any judgment calls. If you can't give an Oscar to Sharlto, give one to Jeremy!
7. "Moon" Another perfect example of what science fiction should really be about. Hell, give Sam Rockwell an Oscar for carrying the film solo (minus Kevin Spacey-bot).
8. "An Education" For me to like a (non-erotic) movie about a British schoolgirl this much proves it's a good movie.
9. "Drag Me To Hell" Sam Raimi's hilarious, frightening, and triumphant return to horror ALMOST makes up for his "Spider-man 3" travesty.
10. "Adventureland" A great movie that mirrored my personal life so well it had to be included on here.

Bottom Five (one being the worst)
5. "Transformers 2: Revenge of the Fallen" Kinda fun, but loud, long, and pointless.
4. "Zombieland" Oh shit I went there! You probably liked this film didn't you? Well I found it zombie-lite, completely lacking in the elements a zombie movie SHOULD contain (subtext, real scares, or at least some creative gore).
3. "The Fourth Kind" Cool premise ruined by shitty storytelling that never went anywhere.
2. "Monsters vs. Aliens" Ugh!!! The antithesis of everything I liked about the other animated movies this year.
1. "Imagine That" At least with "MvA" you could trick people into thinking it would be a fun movie and a good sell. This movie was awful AND based on such a horrible idea that it should never have been green-lit in the first place. Someone should have been fired.

2009 was a weird year for movies. The industry took a hard hit, proving it wasn't immune to the economy (believe me, I felt it at work). There was a lot of studio upheaval, and things SEEM like they are in transition, but nobody knows exactly what that transition IS (if YOU know, tell me, because I'm curious).
Yet at the same time, with no jobs to go to, audiences flocked to the theaters in droves. Box office numbers were HUGE, especially over Christmas. And it was a good year for smallish flicks; while I was less than impressed with most of the years' blockbusters, films with (relatively) smaller budgets did incredibly well, proving there is a niche for (gasp!) good, creative storytelling that doesn't rely on huge stars or exorbitant effects.
And it was a good year for many of my favorite genres. Science fiction came back, generally smarter than its been in the last few years ("Moon" "District 9" "Star Trek" yeah...even "Avatar"). Horror had a few great surprises that didn't rely on torture-porn ("Drag Me To Hell" and "Paranormal Activity"). And, aside from "MvA," animation thrived in new creative formats, often offering more mature stories than half the movies that WERE targeted for grown-ups ("Up," "Cloudy With a Chance of Meatballs," "Coraline," "The Princess and the Frog," and I'm told "Fantastic Mr. Fox").

It wasn't the best year, but it was an encouraging year. I feel a little better about the coming decade...originality may finally be busting open the studio exec sequel-sequel-sequel bubble (which, to be honest, will never FULLY burst), allowing new voices to come through. The industry moguls may be buying up every comic book, board game, and gum wrapper ever made, but as long as the filmmakers keep saying "fuck that" and just making the movies they want to make, perhaps we'll be seeing even more creative stuff in the next few years.

Or not. Maybe I'm just being optimistic/hopeful. But one can dream. Remember, it's the filmGOERS who also decide what movies continue to be made. Only YOU can prevent forest fires.

See ya in the new decade, film freaks!

Special note: I also considered creating a list of my Top Ten of the decade, but realized it would basically just be Pixar movies and the Lord of the Rings trilogy, so I nixed that plan.