The Best of the Decade - #19

Munich (2005)
Directed by: Steven Spielberg

Say what you want, pretentious film snobs, about Spielberg and his Hollywood-type aura. The man makes some quality pictures. Munich is among his best, right up there with Jaws, Schindler's List and another you may find amidst the decades finest. Eric Bana proves that he can act despite what films like The Time Traveler's Wife might suggest and the epic nature of the film was unrivaled in 2005. With the exception of a weird sex scene, there really wasn't much wrong with this movie and I can't start discrediting movies for their sex scenes, no matter how weird they are.

Dear Zachary: A Letter to a Son from His Father (2008)

Directed by: Kurt Keunne

****

Life isn't fair. If I got anything out of this film its the fact that bad things happen to good people and they can keep happening to good people no matter what anyone does to prevent it. This very true, very moving and very tragic documentary essentially tells three stories, that of the life of Andrew Bagby, the life of Zachary Turner and the life of Kate and David Bagby all of whom are tragically effected by a woman named Shirley Turner.

The film's power comes a lot from the way it is compiled so for the sake of preserving that power, I'll skip the synopsis and go straight to how this film effected me. Something I recognized and appreciated throughout was the effect photography, motion or otherwise, can have on me. In a movie like JFK, I'm exposed to the Zapruder film repeatedly and at first its just part of the movie but at second glance I realize I'm watching something happen through the eyes of someone who saw it live. In Dear Zachary, I'm exposed to footage of Andrew Bagby and Zachary Turner to really brings them to life in my eyes. That juxtiposed with interviews from their friends and family really put me in their position and allowed me to relate with the feelings they had towards Shirley Turner and the emotions they were forced to endure.

The title of the film is a bit misleading as the film itself results in a film that is for Kate and David rather than for Zachary. That is mostly irrelevant because for a period, the film was for Zachary but it became very appropriate to make an adjustment for Kate and David. Giving this film to the very deserving (of anything good, ever, for the rest of their lives) did, however, make the end of the film's agenda...a film that until that point had very appropriately been without an agenda...rather unnecessary. It was important for me or anyone to see this movie and to understand again, that bad things can happen to good people and continue to happen to good people and that those people can continue to be good. It wasn't important for me to get the cliffnotes of David's book and Kate and David's new mission in life. I felt that having been exposed to that, followed by the information on how I could support their cause at the end of the movie strayed from what the film was doing. By telling the story or Andrew, Zachary, Kate and David, the film touched me... how could it not? But it had no agenda, it was simply a letter to a Son from his Father or a letter to Kate and David from people who love them. It was a lot of things. What it wasn't, until the end that is, was a movie that told me what to think.

That aside, I can't discredit this movie from have ten lesser minutes towards the end. Its powerful, heartbreaking, tragic and one of the truest emotional tales I've ever seen captured on film. It should be watched because agendas aside, its important and it gives an underlying message that despite all the bad in the world, there will always be good people for it to happen to. As depressing as that sounds, it actually a compliment to Kate and David and people like them.

The Road (2009)

Directed by: John Hillcoat
Starring: Viggo Mortenson

**

I took the road less traveled, and that has made all the difference. Unfortunately for Man (Viggo Mortenson) and his Son (Kodi-Smit McPhee) even those roads less traveled are stricken with canabilistic "bad guys" intent on... well, eating them. So begins the story of survival in the post-apocolyptic world the few remaining have been forced to endure for what I gathered has been years now. Make no mistake, The Road is a survival tale and there are certainly elements and conflicts that present our protagonsists with worst case scenarios, but to be blunt, a battle to survive with no real story surrounding it does not a quality movie make.

The Road is beautifully shot. Even a desolate, destroyed world looks like a painting at times and it captures perfectly the very obvious idea that post-apocolyptic life is worse than pre-apocolyptic. Additionally, there are some scenes that not only work well, but had me on the edge of my seat, or on the verge of tears (not literally... I'm a man, I don't cry. However, I'm sure I'm not man enough to survive the apocolypse). On the road, Man and his son are presented with the fact that they must survive by whatever means necessary, all while remaining "the good guys with the fire inside" (more on this later) Anytime there's a house or a shelter or a car it must serve as a hotel or a grocery store no matter what danger could be inside. That danger reaches its peak in the basement of a townhouse at which point I was gripping my own arms so tightly with fear that I can do nothing but commend the film for its ability to assemble a perfectly crafted scene.

Michael K. Williams', or as credited, The Thief, resume isn't long but his work in The Wire, his small part in Gone Baby Gone and his performance here have led me to calling him a great, great actor. I've scene him play fearless characters impressively, but he was nothing short of heartbreaking as a man who falls victim not to the canables but to "the good guys" who at that point had become so desperate that they are spiteful, angry and suspicious of everyone.

So who are "the good guys"? Viggo Mortenson is good in the film. I wouldn't say he was great because he never convinced me. There was no mystery as to what was going on throughout. The only mysteries existed in the unnecessary flashbacks of when the apocalypse began and the man's wife (Charlize Theron) left. Not only were these flashbacks unnecessary, but their attempt at providing explanations of what happened to Theron's character or why their gun only has two bullets were all unnecessary. The world we see in the present is realistic enough that if we're not going to get the whole story of how our characters got there (didn't need that so its fine) then don't bother with bits and pieces. I'd have been content with just traveling the road. Mortenson, despite the dangers we saw with our own eyes, didn't convince me that he was ever really that afraid of it or that he was ever going to take the extreme measures he assured his son he would. Even the barrel of a gun with one bullet to the forehead of his own child didn't really phase me because I never thought he'd do it. Maybe he wouldn't. Maybe he couldn't. I don't know because that level of his performance was absent. He continuously assures his son that they are the good guys and they'll never resort to eating people even if they're starving because they are fighting with fire inside them to survive. Not only was I not convinced, but clearly his son wasn't because he had to keep asking if they were the good guys. Beyond that... I started to get the impression that he couldn't even convince himself because eventually his son had to keep reminding him that they're the good guys!

Again, Mortenson was good, not great. McPhee was bad, not horrible. More than anything he was annoying and distracting. Not every movie is going to get Christian Bale from Empire of the Son but there is often a middle ground. His performance aside however, the film failed to accomplish the very essential aspect of his character. I fault the film for having no story beyond surviving but at a point I thought that perhaps it was chronicling a father and son's torch passing journey. Throughout, Mortenson refuses to cover his son's eyes because it is important for him to see the horrors of the world they live in. He's training him to survive if and when he is gone. Despite what the film suggests and contrary to common sense, his son still falls asleep immediately when he's on watch.

There was never a point in this movie when I should have laughed. I don't mean there were no jokes, I mean its set up as a very serious, life or death tale. Unfortunately, it almost takes itself too seriously. There are moments when the characters, the situation and the film defy every instinct that anyone should have and it subsequently becomes ridiculous. That ridiculousness mounts to the point where I, as a viewer, got fed up and little things became laughable. Little things that in the context of a seamless film would go unnoticed. As soon as I was aware of the existence of the film, I was no longer invested enough to let little things alone. The story must exist, the film mustn't.

I went into The Road with moderate expectations. Reviews were positive and the trailer looked great but I wonder if its one of those films that garner positive reviews based on reputation rather than quality. How can the author of the great No Country for Old Men give us anything short of brilliant? Well, maybe he did give us something brilliant. John Hillcoat however, gave us nothing more than a long road that by traveling, apparently made no difference at all.

The Best of the Decade - #20

In the Bedroom (2001)
Directed by: Todd Field

I'm not sure I've seen a movie that felt as real or as true to human nature as In the Bedroom. There are aspects of the story that are heartbreaking but the real drama comes as a result of outstanding performances from Tom Wilkinson and Sissy Spacek playing heartbroken parents. The story is simple but the characters are complex and every level of them is portrayed. The subtleties of their performances are what make this film so subtly great. There is nothing in your face about it, even when its up front and direct, it flows with a perfect consistency right into the number 20 spot in the best of the decade debate.

Hoop Dreams (1994)

Directed by: Steve James

*****

Documentaries have a tendency of trying to prove a point rather than telling a story. They'll use a collection of events or circumstances pieced together and often times they'll be persuasive, compelling and effective but very rarely are they entertaining. Hoop Dreams does one thing perfectly and its enough to sustain itself as a great movie and that is tell a story.

The film chronicles the life of two Chicago kids with dreams of playing in the NBA. What pushes things forward is that they aren't pipe dreams. Arthur Agee and William Gates are both recruited by St. Josephs High School and declared by the Around the Horn of that time period as rising stars with Isiah Thomas potential. The movie is not about basketball, it doesn't tell a story about how basketball shapes your life the way average movies like Love and Basketball do. It tells the story about how life shapes the kind of person and by extension the kind of player that the kids become. Oddly enough, this story told as a narrative is probably pretty cheesy and cliche... just another sports movie.

Hoops Dreams spans over the course of about five years, starting with Arthur and William being recruited for high schools and ending just prior to their going off to college. This, to me, allows the movie to flow realistically and uninfluenced. I have a hard time believing people's actions in documentaries when I know that they know there's a camera in their face. Even if they behave differently, or answer a question in class when they wouldn't have otherwise done so, I know that their dreams and their intentions are genuine. I'm not watching an adult Arthur or William remembering the times when he wanted to be an NBA star. I'm watching him as he's growing up with those hoop dreams.

While I commend this film for telling a story, I also recognize that part of what makes it work is that there's no real beginning, middle and end. There's never a major focus on any one conflict. While William's knee injury may have changed things significantly for him as a player... the movie continues to understand that its not about him as a player, but about him as a person. When Arthur's father leaves the movie understands that its not just about his family but its about his life as a player with big dreams. All the elements combine into a smart and powerful story. Its not a combination of frightening stats about the unlikelihood of making it to the NBA or drugs and violence in inner city Chicago and how it effects innocent families. Its just a story about two people trying to get what they want most out of life.

Ebert calls this the best movie of the 90s. I don't, but I do call it the best documentary or the 90s, possibly the best documentary I've ever seen and truly a great, great movie.

Best of the Decade - #21

The 40 Year Old Virgin (2005)
Directed by: Judd Apatow


Really? One of the best films of the decade? Yes indeed. Not only that, but I would consider it a benchmark for modern day comedy. I'm not completely sure why I needed to justify this pick with the pseudo-argument I made because The 40 Year Old Virgin has all the elements of not only a great comedy but a great movie. Apatow pieces together enormous laughs and the subtitles of human drama... wait, there's nothing subtle about this movie. A lot of comedies are quotable, a lot are funny even upon repeated viewings but very few are both along with continuously being a great movie.

The Best of the Decade - #22

There Will Be Blood (2007)
Directed by: Paul Thomas Anderson


Paul Thomas Anderson is one of the best directors of the past decade so its fitting that his best film of the decade is one of my best of the decade. There Will Be Blood, very much like Magnolia (1999), which is one of my favorite films of all time, has a consistent mood to it. Anderson creates this type of flow to a movie better than any other director. Paired with one of the great performances of the decade from Daniel Day Lewis, There Will Be Blood is compelling and subtle at the same time. After my first viewing... this film likely would not have made this list but after seeing it a second time I recognized everything it does so intentionally. At times it minipulates its audience but it never shortchanges them. Number 22... There Will be Blood.

No Man's Land (2001)

Directed by: Danis Tanovic
Starring: Branko Djuric

*****

If you've followed my top 25 films of the decade postings, then you'll know already that No Man's Land is a brilliant conceptual film that is executed to perfection. Interestingly enough, there's nothing all that nail biting about the film. Its engaging, interesting and important but it, very intentionally, never really made me nervous.

The film opens with a small group of Bosnian Soldiers wander lost through the fog. Typically, this would set up our protagonists but instead it simply gives us a character. Ciki (Branko Djuric) looks and acts like he's fed up with the war and while he jokes and gets along with his fellow soldiers, there isn't anything significant about him that gives an audience a real reason to like him. This, to me was the most impressive. The way the film created its characters to be neither the good guys or the bad guys... or likable or unlikable really made the ensuing conflict very real.

No Man's Land could have taken place anywhere, at anytime between any two people who disagree. That's what makes this story so brilliant. It will stand the test of time because its about dealing with differences. Its not necessarily about reconciling those differences... just about dealing with them. Ciki and Nino (the Serb) have no choice but to accept their situation. They must make something out of the fact that they are trapped in a trench together between the two front lines and another soldier is lying awake on a mine that will kill them all if he moves. They don't deal with this situation by becoming friends and realizing that the war is stupid and they should go AWOL and go on a fishing trip together. No, they bicker like children about who's fault the war is. Then they are civil with each other and agree to keep their guns on their shoulders. But then one takes a knife and tries to stab the other one. This to me, felt very real. This story doesn't try to make its audience feel something that isn't there. It tells it how it is.

There are aspects of the film that really make you want to puke but I'm convinced that its intentional. The media pounces on the situation in the trench with no regards about what could happen... as long as they get their story. I recognize the exaggeration by making the key reporter absolutely obnoxious and void of feelings but without that exaggeration, we wouldn't get a feel for how the world feels about the war going on. In the trench, the soldiers argue about who's fault the war is. Through the media and the UN's involvement, we realize that most people don't even care.

The film poses the question, what would two enemy soldiers trapped in a trench do? Its a much bigger movie however. I'd be interested to see a version of this film with different characters and settings. The concept is so smart that is, seemingly, without even trying presents so many more questions and issues worth discussing.

The Best of the Decade - #23

No Man's Land (2001)
Directed by: Danis Tanovic

No Man's Land is a brilliant conceptual film executed to perfection. Two enemy soldiers during the Bosnian War trapped in a trench between the lines with yet another soldier lying on a mine that will kill them all should he move the slightest. The conflict presents appropriate arguments for war that range from sophisticated and intelligent to immature and childish as soldiers bicker back and forth over who's fault the war is. Its worthy of all the praise it received and furthermore, worthy of the 23rd best film of the decade.

The Matrix (1999)

Directed by: Andy Wachowski, Larry Wachowski
Starring Keanu Reeves

**

The Matrix is absolutely a film to study. Its style is inventive, innovative and original. For that reason, its a worthwhile watch. It is not however, and I recognize that I'm not just in the minority but perhaps the only one who believes this, an original story or for that matter, an entertaining one.

I've probably seen The Matrix a half dozen or so times and I've never really been able to fully convince myself that its a great movie as so many critics and fans around me suggest. There was a time when I looked at the film one dimensionally enough to consider it good simply based on the great action scene that takes place in the lobby. Now, even that scene is ridiculous to me because I couldn't help but ask the question, where are Neo and Trinity breaking into that has so many SWAT members readily available for combat. Its this aspect of The Matrix that really makes the film fall short for me.

The story itself surrounds Thomas Anderson, aka Neo (Reeves... I'll get to him later) who appears to be a computer hacker of sorts when he's not working at a top tier software company. His knowledge and relationships with computers are what guide him towards the mystery of the Matrix and those who know of it. Through Trinity (Carrie-Ann Moss), he's introduced to Morpheus (Lawrence Fishburne) who believes completely that Neo is the so-called "One". After being trained to do things he'd never be able to do in real life all thanks to essentially turning his brain into a computer, (which is possible thanks to some mumbo-jumbo I'll chalk up as movie magic) he becomes a member of the resistance. Resistance to what? This is quite the mystery. The best I can gather, is that they are the small number of people aware of what the future of the world holds because they are living in it while the majority of the world goes on living unknowingly. The future they live in is dark and bleak. Machines fly around threatening them. And they can be transported into the Matrix, i.e. the unknowing world that believes it is 100 years prior to when it actually is. Time travel, dangerous machines from the future and the enemy that no one can destroy make up the conflicts presented to Neo and the rest of the crew. Those enemies by the way... they're called Agents, not Terminators in case you were confused. When Morpheus tells Neo he is part of the resistance, I'm convinced that it may well have been John Connor.

There is my argument against the so-called originality of The Matrix but that shouldn't make or break a movie. There are similar stories told in films all the time and it doesn't make either film better or worse than the other. What really doesn't work in The Matrix is the fact that so much exists that doesn't make any sense and isn't explained. At first, I began to ask why Agents are so much more powerful than everyone else in "the real world". The answer was simple, at least the answer I came up with. They, perhaps have more sophiscated software or their minds are more powerful and that's what makes them so fast and so strong. Morpheus asks... and now you need to say this like Morpheus or it doesn't sound as cool..."do you think how strong or how fast I am, has anything to do with my muscles?" Jokes aside, it is a valid point within the context of the film. The idea is that the mind controls everything and that if you believe you are fast or strong, then you are. So that's simple, the agents believe they are faster and stronger. But why are they so dead set on killing Morpheus and Neo and getting access codes and being in charge. It seems like the Agents and the crew of the Nebekenezer could team up and really wreak some havoc if they just got along. The claim is that the Agents control "the real world", so then I ask, what are they doing so poorly that is forcing the crew to fight them. The film spends so much time trying to convince its audience that the idea of The Matrix is real or believable that it doesn't focus on everything else going on. The Matrix is the world that we all live in. Its very familiar looking to an audience. If you're going to describe that as fake, then you damn well better have a good explanation of what is real.

Now for Mr. Reeves. I've never been a fan and I know that despite my opinion of his biggest movie, I'm in good company here. I can't recall off the top of my head a line of dialogue uttered by Reeves that didn't come across as forced or wrong or just plain bad. His performance without a doubt, hurts the film. A character that is considered "The One" by other characters in the film needs to have some kind of definition and substance and Reeves plays it one dimensionally and flat because I'm sure he doesn't know how to do anything different. Elsewhere, Lawrence Fishburne puts on a clinic when it comes to creating an identity for a character. The look and the pacing of Morpheus' personality is memorable. Everything about Reeves is mocked.

The style of The Matrix is all the things I mentioned. The slow motion fight scenes, bullet timing and on a simpler level, the cinematography and editing a done well. They are what give the film an identity and what I believe marveled viewers upon its release. Now, in a filmmaking world ten years in the future of The Matrix, those elements aren't enough to make The Matrix original. They are still inventive and innovative but the one thing that needs to stand the test of time, the story, either began in the 80s with The Terminator or never made it out of 1999.

Rambo: First Blood Part II (1985)

Directed by: George P. Cosmatos
Starring: Sylvester Stallone

**

Rambo: First Blood Part II is pretty much the same movie as the original First Blood. The only differences are that Rambo has an actual mission, it takes place in Vietnam instead of Oregon and Rambo's fighting soldiers rather than civilians/cops. Everything else is just about the same... well the quality of the movie is definitely a bit different as well.

The film opens with Rambo in prison. He did of course kill a few cops so despite his impeccable service record, that offense does tend to require punishment. He's released from prison when his unit commander comes to him with a dangerous mission for which Rambo is only one of three people capable of completing. So he accepts and heads to Vietnam to take pictures of POW camps. Rambo, however doesn't take pictures... he intends to rescue against orders.  What we soon find out is that there was a reason Rambo was ordered not to rescue. He's expendable. Mission commanders had no intention of bringing Rambo out if he survived.

Stuck in Vietnam, intent on completing his mission or at least a mission, Rambo develops a relationship with his partner. But that was just weird because Rambo is a loner... his code name after all is Lone Wolf. Again, like the original First Blood, Part 2 knows what it is and doesn't stray. So to avoid the relationship, the Vietcong just blow her away not moments after the two's first kiss. But now its even more personal. Rambo's agendas increase from simply being a rescue mission to avenging Co Bao, which he does right away by blasting her killer about 200 times, but he also intends to go after the mission commander who used him.

Long story short, everything you think will happen, does. The biggest problem with Part 2 is that unlike the original where problems like Stallone's performance during monologues can be overlooked, its a bit too ridiculous. Yes, the action scenes are cool and they work in the context of any Rambo movie but there is no reasoning behind any of it. Rambo had no mission in the original but he had a reason to fight... he was forced to. Here, Rambo has a mission but once its over, he just kind of runs around killing people. There are conflicts but there's no real reason other than the fact that Rambo can so he does.

Overall, First Blood Part II is again a pretty decent action movie thanks to the action in it but it lacks a lot that the original possesses.  I had no doubt Rambo would survive. The dangers he faced were one's I had no doubt he'd overcome. There is no internal conflict for the audience, all that's there is what's blowing up on the screen. That alone, can't really drive a movie forward well enough to make up for the fact that there's nothing to relate to throughout.

First Blood (1982)

Directed by: Ted Kotcheff
Starring: Sylvester Stallone

***

First Blood does what most action movies do. It begins with a simple story, a simple conflict and a simple character and literally explodes into a action packed blood bath where one man fights and beats hundreds of others. But its Rambo so its okay. John Rambo, John MacClane and the Terminator are really the only characters allowed to get away with this nonsense.

Danny DeVito gives the best plot summary of Rambo in Its Always Sunny in Philadelphia so I'll just use that. John Rambo (Sylvester Stallone... if you didn't know that already) just got back from 'nam. He was hitchin' through Oregon when all of a sudden this cop starts harassing him. Next thing he knows, there's a whole army of cops chasing him through the woods. He had to take them all out... it was a blood bath. Now DeVito thinks this happened to him but its actually the very accurate plot of First Blood.  Whether or not the Army does train certain men into literal killing machines the way they did Rambo is irrelevant because in the context of First Blood, they did and Rambo is one of those killing machines. He's trained to ignore pain, to survive no matter what and when in doubt, kill.  So when he's presented with a situation in which all of those things come into play... that is exactly what happens. Fortunately, Stallone doesn't have to do much else.

When it comes to his monologue essentially describing his post war stress and how unfair he's treated after fighting a way he didn't believe in we really get a look at Stallone's acting chops, or lack there of.  The fact that the muscles in his face never seem to move really makes it kind of funny.

All that having been said, First Blood is a pretty good action movie because it knows its an action movie. Things blow up when they're supposed to. The good guys and bad guys are clearly distinguishable and its easy to root for Rambo.  Its an average movie but its action scenes are above average and because it doesn't stray from being what its supposed to be, I have to give it its due credit.

Das Boot (1981)

Directed by: Wolfgang Peterson

Starring: Jürgen Prochnow

*****

Its been a while since I've been as glued to a movie as I was Das Boot. Had the running time not exceeded three and a half hours, I'm certain life would not have gotten in the way and I'd have been able to sit and watch it start to finish, probably a couple times.  No matter though. Das Boot has the intensity, the entertainment value and the quality of filmmaking to sustain any type of viewing.  I was continuously able to pick up where I left off and feel just as claustrophobic, frightened and involved as any character in the film. These are the qualities of one of the best movies I've ever seen.

While Das Boot is not necessarily the greatest movie I've ever seen, it is perhaps the greatest made movie I've ever seen. As I watched and knowing what I do about filmmaking, I was able to recognize the patience and the discipline displayed by Peterson. So often, within the confines of U-96, a German submarine, I was forced to know only what the characters knew. As an audience member, its very difficult to not expect the magic of movies to allow me to see both sides of a battle, to see what was happening on the surface of the water while the characters waited in fear below. Peterson doesn't give us this. In fact the closest we ever get to the outside of the submarine while its under water is seeing the exploding depth charges threatening the life of the boat's crew.  The only thing that the characters in this film feel that the audience doesn't is their own physical pain. I was 100% involved in everything else. Its masterful filmmaking.

Jürgen Prochnow is the veteran Captain of U-96.  Its his leadership that guides his 42 man crew off to fight a war that really means very little to them. They are all there to do their duty but aren't necessarily fighting for anyone or anything but their survival. This is somewhat of an irrelevant plot point but it is part of what makes this movie so great. Its not about what war they are fighting or about which side they are on. In the context of this movie, they are just people, young, ordinary men put into extraordinary circumstances. Its the same approach that movies like Black Hawk Down use but without the glorified aspects. There are no uniforms and flags forcing the audience to pick sides. We hope for the crews survival because they are the films protagonists, not because they are the good guys and the British destroyers are the bad guys. My comparisons are in no way intended to discredit a movie like Black Hawk Down, only to describe in detail what makes Das Boot work as well as it does. The film is everything I wanted There Will be Blood to be. What that film turned out as was great in its own right, but what I expected was a movie so dialed in to everything surrounding just one thing, the consequences of pride and the rewards of hard work and risk.  The absense of politics in this movie make it better but cliche (not the bad cliche) message remains... war is hell and it doesn't end with the mission.

Prochnow is brilliant in this film.  There is a subtly to his performance. You see in his eyes that he's been through a lot and that most of the time, he's experienced the dangers the face all too often. You also see in his eyes when he fears the unknown. I'm convinced he could have gone three and half hours without a line of dialogue and I wouldn't have missed anything, yet another sign of great filmmaking and a great performance... a good story, real emotions and compelling conflicts are more essential than lines of dialogue describing them.

This movie exists in and of itself. That's what makes it work better than anything else. It doesn't start, progress into a conflict and continue to its resolution.  There's no real, beginning, middle and end which is why I would have had no trouble just watching it forever. The mission lasts the length of the movie and everything that happens is a part of it. The flow of the film, or the story, of the mission, whichever you decide, is seamless.

Wolfgang Peterson has given us some bad movies, i.e. The Perfect Storm and Air Force One. Neither of those movies were poorly made however, they just did a lot of things wrong that Das Boot did right and I could say that about so many other movies because Das Boot... really doesn't do anything wrong.

The Best Films of the Decade - #24

Master and Commander: The Far Side of the World (2003)

Directed by: Peter Weir

Master and Commander is an epic in the truest sense of the genre. It commands the screen (no pun intended) throughout every frame and that is a credit to the direction, the performances and the brilliant cinematography.

In 2003, this film didn't have the impact on me the way it does now. Over the years, I've seen it repeatedly, often times because of the brilliant endorsement it received from a fellow film fan, and with each viewing I grow fonder of what an acheivement it is. The fact that this film didn't make enough money to warrent what would have been an equally brilliant sequal is a shame... perhaps a tragedy considering what we are left with. That being a brilliant cliffhanger of an ending and the 24th best film of the past decade.

The Best Films of the Decade - #25

There was a time when I easily upkept a list of my favorite 50 films of all time... in order. Well its been (if my math is right, and it rarely is) seven years of movie watching since I did that and now I'm realizing how difficult any movie list is as I compile my top 25 films of the last decade. The years 2000-2009 have graced us with films like Gladiator, Adaptation and Amores Perros... some of my favorite movies... but not among the 25 best films of this decade.

The most important thing to remember when reading this list is that its not perfect. There is always the chance that I missed a film worthy of the top 25 or that the order in which I've set these films is inaccurate. That having been said, this is the list I was able to come up with and I'm satisfied with the fact that even if it is not 100% accurate, all of these films are great movies of the last decade and by extension, some of the best films ever made.

------

Crash (2004) 

Directed by: Paul Haggis

At first I was hesitant to even put this film in the conversation. However, looking back at 2004, I realize that it was my favorite film of that particular year and that it was in the midst of Paul Haggis' association with brilliant films.  Crash mixed great performances with real situations thus creating a entertaining and powerful film. Its been a while since seeing the film but I can't ignore the fact that at one time, it was better than any other movie I saw during a 365 day period within the 3650 day period within which I'm attempting to find the best films. That's a bit wordy... Crash is a great, great five-star film worthy of the 25th best film of the past 10 years.

Young @ Heart (2007)

Directed by: Stephen Walker, Sally George

**

There are moments during Young @ Heart that really make you feel something. In other words, they are moving. There are more moments however when the film really tries to dupe its audience into feeling something.  This may make me seem insensitive since the film is about a group of old people who spend their wonder years singing rock songs despite their many of their failing healths. They sing to convicts at a prison and because they rise and clap we're supposed to feel like the old people are so moving. Basically what the film is saying is that normally criminals can't feel things.

In a way I'm being too hard on this movie because the story is real. These people really are sacrificing their health and on occasion risking their lives because the understand they are old and have little time left and they want to spend it doing something they love.  Whether or not this particular story touched a nerve for me is somewhat irrelevant because, again its real and it wouldn't have been appropriate to make it into something its not.  The bigger problems with this film are in the way that its made. It moves almost slower than its characters, its longer than their lives and its poorly shot.

To capture any kind of emotion surrounding what the Young @ Heart chorus does, there needs to be an intimate feel to it. The static hand held shots combined with too many cuts really takes you out of the moments.  Spending the majority of the film listening to the chorus rehearse was just loud and kind of annoying.  Its one thing to hear how they start with a song and how polished it becomes once they've rehearsed it a lot, its obnoxious to hear them rehearse over and over and over again. I spent most of the film waiting to listen to all of them sing at this highly touted concert when I was certain I'd be surprised at how good they were. The concert finally arrived after much waiting and yes they were good and their rendition of Coldplay's "Fix You" was moving and "I Feel Good" was funny and exciting. As expected, the end was worth waiting for. It wasn't worth waiting so long for though.

I really felt like Young @ Heart was a very nice group of people that gathered to do something they love. What it isn't, is something a camera should be in front of... at least not this particular camera. The intimacy of what they do was lost and any emotion I would have wanted to get out of this film clearly must have happened off camera because interviews within the film and its external reviews suggest that its really, really moving and touching.

Shoot 'Em Up (2007)

Directed by: Michael Davis
Starring: Clive Owen

***

The opening scene of this film doesn't really bother with being reasonable, realistic or even fathomable.  What is does do is pack in more action than I've seen in some time. The scene goes by so quickly though that I was kind of frustrated by the lack of entertainment within.

The rest of the film continues at lightning speed. There's a plot, there's a conflict and the character's have some motivation. I know this because the character's told me everything straight out. Not exactly quality filmmaking but at the same time, Michael Davis appeared to have been smart enough to know that his audience wasn't there for scenes to flesh out the story. What they were more interested in was more shooting, more blood and more action.

The film surrounds a newborn baby that Mr. Smith (Clive Owen) delivers during the heat of a fire fight. When the mother is killed, he takes responsibility for said baby and is forced to fight off perhaps the biggest gang on bad guys with no motive in the history of cinema. When he kills them all, Paul Giamatti, the lead bad guy, rounds up 50 more.  Its a Jackie Chan type action movie that almost makes you laugh at the invincibility of our protagonist and the horrible aim of all the bad guys.

The film acknowledges itself well though. It understands what it is. Giamatti very smartly points out, "Are we this bad or is this guy really that good?" It is lines like this that allow this movie to get away with all that it does. By not taking itself too seriously, I don't tend to mind that Clive Owen keeps killing people with carrots.  Everytime Shoot 'Em Up slows down with simple storytelling procedures like a love story or an explanation of conflicts and their resolutions we're greeted with a spectacular shootout. Normally this wouldn't work, but again, this movie knows its over the top Mr. Smith killing every invading swat member while having sex is not only acceptable, its welcomed.

Here in lies the conflict in reviewing a film like this. Just because a movie does everything it intends to do well, doesn't necessarily make it a good movie. However, how can I suggest that a movie like this isn't good when it is in fact well made, entertaining and successful in what its attempting to do? Shoot 'Em Up is a good movie. Its really the only conclusion I can come to. Everything about it is so BIG that its okay if it doesn't make sense.  Its a gunshot to a car's gas tank making it explode times a hundred.

What the film does miss despite all its action is really come across as cool.  Mr. Smith didn't have the kind of "make me want to kill people all sorts of cool ways" influence that Jason Bourne, James Bond or Ethan Hunt have.  As outrageous as this movie was, it wasn't really all that cool and unfortunately, movies like this really have to be cool.  But I give it a pass because while it wasn't as cool as I wanted it to be, it was entertaining in a unique way that not a lot of movies I've seen have been able to pull off.

The Station Agent (2003)

Directed by: Thomas McCarthy
Starring: Peter Dinklage

**1/2

The Station Agent is a nice little movie. Unfortunately its not a whole lot more than that. Peter Dinklage plays Fin, who inherits his only friend's train depot after he dies. His intention is to live a life of solitude and to very simply not be bothered. Unfortunately, the very friendly Joe tries to befriend him and Olivia, who can't seem to get out of her own way as he life very subtly falls apart interferes with what Fin wants out of life.  They are simple characters with simple lives. This is precisely the intention and it works for the film. It maintains its simple feel and mood that surrounds the characters.

Where the film falls short (no pun intended) is that Peter Dinklage's character could have been played by just about anyone. The aspects of the story surrounding his dwarfism were unnecessary especially considering the performance he turned in.  Had Dinklage not been good enough to sell the simple conflicts of the story and his character, the much bigger and more obvious conflict (Fin dealing with the hardships of being different) would have been more necessary. Dinklage, however, nails the loner character so well that he didn't need to be a dwarf. That sounds horrible. I should say, the character of Fin could have just as easily and successfully played by anyone, short, tall, black, white etc. etc. That didn't sound much better.

The supporting cast was above average at best. Bobby Cannavale as Joe wasn't great but he was a good cast as the character. He very much came across as the annoying neighbor with nothing but good intentions. Patricia Clarkson was kind of the opposite. Her performance as Olivia was nothing special and she really didn't work as the character. In fact, I'm not sure I'll every really buy Patricia Clarkson as the love interest of a film.  Lastly, was Michelle Williams who was very good not only in her performance but in defining a very real character with very real problems, which is essentially what this film was often trying to capture.

As I said, its a nice little film but there isn't anything that brings it over the top. Its simplicity works to both its advantage and its disadvantage. A good simple movie is tough to pull off.  Its also makes it very tough to write a review for.  So that's that.

Shaun of the Dead (2004)

Directed by: Edgar Wright
Starring: Simon Pegg

***1/2

I've been criticized for taking living dead type movies too seriously (i.e. Evil Dead, Army of Darkness). While I'm not a fan of either of those movies, I do in a sense, understand the comedy aspect of them. Part of the issue I have with them is that they don't blend their intentions to not be taken seriously, while being a seriously suspenseful/frightening movie. I don't bring this up to knock Sam Raimi but rather to preface what Shaun of the Dead does so perfectly.

The first time I saw Shaun of the Dead, I was so pleasently surprised that I've plugged it ever since. Now, some years later, I finally watched it for a second time. Again, I was not disappointed with the consistent humor that while occasionally in your face, was still subtle enough to maintain the other aspects of the film. The humor is the most memorable part of the film and because of that, I had forgotten that there really are elements of suspense and fright scattered throughout. And hence, a movie that has seriously suspenseful/frightening elements all while not taking itself seriously at all.

For such a simple concept, Shaun of the Dead is a very smart movie. There are times when it goes a little bit too low brow but even then, jokes like the fart jokes still work (a credit to the comedic talents of both Simon Pegg and Nick Frost).  What serperates Shaun of the Dead is that is doesn't just scare us with zombies or make us laugh by Shaun and Ed's obliviousness but it is really a good story of relationships and what's really important. When the TV anchor is telling everyone not to leave their homes, Shaun ignores this in a quick cutting montage as he explains to Ed his plan... Save his mother from his zombie stepdad, go get his girlfriend back and go somewhere safe, which turns out to be the Winchester Bar (the route of so many of his problems). It happens often in films, but Shaun of the Dead portrays "the big problem gives our antagonist the incentive to solve his smaller ones" theme very well.

There really wasn't a lot to dislike about this movie but that doesn't suggest that it was void of problems. Shaun's friend Mary is introduced very structurely however turns out to be relatively pointlessly. Additionally, she also takes away some of the suspense. Her introduction, followed by her second appearence suggests somewhat obviously that she will return for some purpose eventually. As the film nears an end, he purpose becomes more and more evident. The film does a pretty good job disguising this with clever jokes like having Mary's group of survivors look exactly like Shaun's group... a bizarro group so to speak, but essentially, it was all unnecessary. Not to give too much away but Shaun is our hero, we don't need someone else to come along to help him regardless of whether or not Shaun is a non-heroic like human being. What's important is that he changes and realizes what's important in his life and puts that first.

Having never been a fan of zombie movies, I really enjoy this spoof on them. The idea that a zombie movie can not take itself seriously and still be good enforces my opinion that there is no such thing as a movie is so bad its good because its funny (which is my only explanation for the popularity of the Evil Dead films). Again, this is not a knock on Raimi... or maybe it is. Edgar Wright (who?) made a way better zombie movie than the great Sam Raimi.