A New Decade Means...

...It's time to make things happen!

Time to stop wasting my talent (yes, I have talent, thank you very much). It's time to take risks, do what I love, hone my skills, and make the world a better place. It's time to enjoy life, and be creative!

In other words, a year from now I plan on being in a very different place than the year before; a better place, literally and figuratively.

Reviews...

I finally got a chance to catch some of the better movies from last year:

"Fantastic Mr. Fox" I've never been huge on Wes Anderson, but it turns out his quirky, almost OCD-brand of symmetrical production design and eccentric disconnected characters work perfectly in conjunction with stop-motion animation. I wasn't sold on the animation style after seeing the first dreadful kid-oriented trailer, but Anderson's attention to detail and doing everything practically (as opposed to using CGI as a facilitator) gives the film an old craftsman-like feel (despite stories that he drove the animators nuts during production). Things like cotton-ball explosions and saran wrap waterfalls remind me of my favorite creative animation classes from film school...fantastic indeed!!! Another notch in the belt for 2009's awesome year of animation.

"Inglourious Basterds" Like Wes Anderson, I've always found Tarantino's films interesting but never LOVED them. However this is certainly one of his better flicks. Setting a film in World War II forces Tarantino not to get too distracted with meta-references (part of what makes the "Kill Bill" movies so insufferable), and the result is a lot of fun.

Much has been said about Cristoph Waltz's performance as the villain, and he deserves all the praise he gets. However it's important not to overlook the marvelous work by the women in the film. Diane Kruger is great, and has gracefully risen from the bland pretty-face type roles she had in movies such as "Troy" to become a very mature dramatic actress (she was also quite good in "The Hunting Party" for those who saw it). But the real star of the movie is gorgeous French actress Melanie Laurent, whose story I found phenomenally more interesting than that of the titular Basterds. While the Basterds were certainly cool, every time they went to them I just wanted to go back and see what was happening to the girl who owned the movie theater.

At times I found Tarantino's stylistic approach actually got in the way of a movie that is already made up of some pretty stellar storytelling (I don't need flashy freeze frames and titles popping up in a World War II movie), but other times he thought up some great out-of-the-box stuff that was quite clever (David Bowie's "Cat People" was a stroke of genius).

I also expected the story to play out differently (SPOILERS). I assumed the Basterds would ultimately fail in their plot, but the girl would succeed and get her revenge. Instead, EVERYONE gets to have fun killing nazis, but the main bad guy gets away, albeit with a swastika carved in his forehead.

A few gripes here and there, but overall a great film by Tarantino; I don't think I've enjoyed one of his movies this much since he first broke out with "Reservoir Dogs."

"Sherlock Holmes" I didn't expect much from this movie, but I was pleasantly surprised. I had expected a Hollywoodized, postmodern take on Holmes that would be loud, brash, and annoying. To a degree I was right, but I was also surprised how faithful the movie was to the original Sherlock Holmes mythos. 19th-century London to me always seemed dismal, dank, and dirty (as shown in "Oliver Twist" for example), but this movie makes it seems like a really slick and stylish place to live. The costume designers in particular deserve praise for overriding my preconceived notions of British stuffiness. And of course Robert Downey Jr. and Jude Law are both in tip-top form.

The biggest problem with the Sherlock Holmes movie is the villain; Mark Strong has popped up in several projects recently, but he doesn't have the depth or screen presence to really shine as a worthy opponent to anyone, let alone someone as brilliant as Robert Downey Holmes. Plus, with most Sherlock Holmes mysteries you actually expect a real MYSTERY to be going on, and you should partially be able to figure it out until Holmes pieces it all together, making you slap your head and shout "Ohhhh...NOW I get it!" In this movie, while the mystery is certainly "solved" it never comes as a revelation, but simply a matter of keeping the audience completely in the dark. I was disappointed in that regard, and could have used more real sleuthing.

Hopefully the filmmakers will figure out the villain/mystery issue for the sequel (which is likely, considering that they hint at Moriarty in this film, and there have been rumors of Brad Pitt to play him). Solve that elementary (har!) problem, and my ass will be in the seat again!

On to newer movies! 2010 is off to terrible start, but it IS January, aka the dumping ground for shit:

"When In Rome" This is one of the worst films I have EVER seen. EVER. I have no desire to review it any more than that.

"The Wolfman" As you are no doubt aware of by now, I love werewolves, and I am sorely disappointed in the way this movie turned out. Despite a solid cast, the film missteps in almost every direction, mainly because it doesn't have an identity. Which actually makes total sense, considering the original director was replaced by Joe Johnston, your go-to guy for empty popcorn fodder.

I don't have anything WRONG with popcorn fodder per se, but I'm pretty certain the first director had bigger ideas on his mind that were nixed by the studio, ultimately resulting in a film mired by schizophrenia. Half the tim it feels like a moody character study in Victorian England; then the next moment we have over-the-top gore that feels entirely out of place. Even a last-ditch effort to bring in esteemed editor Walter Murch didn't help. Universal's best monster deserved better.

"The Book of Eli" The second half of this movie is more interesting than the first, but it's still pretty bad overall. Any sense of suspense or danger is diluted by Denzel Washington being such a badass that you're never worried he's going to come into any actual peril. Washington apparently produced the movie, so he's probably one of the people to blame, but it's also disappointing to see Gary Oldman and even Michael Gambon, who are above this sludgy material. Malcolm McDowell is a welcome surprise in the end (and he always shows up for the paycheck), but by then it's too little, too late.

I DID get to see this movie for free in the Gold Class Cinemas Pasadena theater, where they serve you drinks, wine, and gourmet food while you watch the movie in reclining chairs. Wallowing in such extravagance while gazing at such a shitastrophe, I couldn't help but think, "Yeah, this sums up Hollywood pretty well."

The directors of this movie are also in talks to develop a live-action "Akira" movie, so there's another potentially awesome project ready to get ruined; chalk it up with Roland Emmerich's completely misplaced plans for Asimov's "Foundation."

Other movies I saw:

"Battlestar Galactica: The Plan", I'm a huge Battlestar fan, but unfortunately their movies never seem to work out ("Razor" was a cool idea, but it wasn't executed very well). "The Plan" tells the story of the war from the Cylons' point of view. The title comes from the Battlestar tag line "And they have a plan" ("they" being the Cylons of course!). On the show, you always felt like the Cylons had some overarching goal involving their constant manipulation after the 12 colonies were destroyed, but in this movie it becomes very clear that they're "plan" was a big frak-up and they just made things up as they went along. Hmm...well THAT'S not very exciting now, is it?
A disappointing follow-up to an otherwise awesome show. However I've been following the "Caprica" spin-off. While I'm not a huge fan of the recent episodes, the pilot at least showed some promise. Fingers are crossed.

"Ginger Snaps" I've been doing my werewolf research, and this awesome little low-budget flick was quite original and clever (it actually makes a lot of my own ideas seem less clever in retrospect, but oh well). Here, lycanthropy is used as a metaphor for puberty and sexual discovery, and how it can drive two close sisters away from each other. Some great gore, but also a really poignant and interesting story with many surprises. I loved it!

"Fire and Ice" Fans of animation know Ralph Bakshi as the guy who made the first X-rated animated film, did a shitty version of Lord of the Rings, and generally has experimented with a lot of interesting animation ideas that gave results which were always less-than-extraordinary.
So it is with "Fire and Ice." Using the interesting technique of rotoscoping over live-action with hand-drawn animation creates a very otherwordly feel that is sort of interesting, but the overall quality is lacking and the storytelling sucks.
What is MOST interesting about the movie is its blatant sexism. The women are so scantily clad that it borders on pornography, but it feels like some sort of weird fetish because you're still watching animation; I don't recommend "Fire and Ice," but if you DO see it you may feel unclean and need a shower afterward.

"Being There" I had never seen what is widely regarded as Peter Sellers' masterwork. I liked it quite a lot, but I didn't love it. The basic premise is sort of one-jokey, but they DO take that joke very far and explore it in all its forms. The ending is also quite a head-scratcher. I interpreted it as an example of how innocence can lead to a life of bliss, free from the rules, while roomie David saw it as a critique on religion (which is a very "David" interpretation, so no surprise there). If you haven't seen this, it's worth giving a look.

"Quest For Fire" THIS movie was awesome!!! I've always enjoyed films that manage to tell a story free of dialogue, often with non-human characters. The first half hour of "WALL-E" for example, or even certain nature docs or faux nature docs (such as "The Bear"), allow us to recognize sentience not as the ability to talk, but to think and feel, and that there is a relatability we have to creatures that we often forget. It's the sort of movie I really want to make someday (with dinosaurs...you heard it here first!).
"Quest For Fire" tells this story with cavemen. You'd never think a bunch of grunting Cro-Magnons would make for great storytelling, but it's fun and fascinating, and must have been a blast to shoot (imagine the opening scenes of "2001: A Space Odyssey" stretched to a feature film and you get the idea). A young Ron Perlman plays one of the leads, which makes sense considering he LOOKS like a caveman.
The movie certainly takes artistic liberties with archaelogical evidence, but its heart is in the right place (there are no anachronistic dinosaurs at least). If you're like me and enjoy a fresher, different take on what constitutes a movie, I think you'll enjoy this one. Granted, I am a sucker for paleontology, so I may be biased. But this is still a waaaaaaay more artful caveman movie than "10,000 B.C."

Here's to better movies in the new decade! Even if it means kidnapping the Hughes brothers and Roland Emmerich so they can't ruin potentially great science fiction.