Invictus (2009)

Directed by: Clint Eastwood
Starring: Morgan Freeman

***1/2

In the hands of a lesser director, Invictus would be overly inspirational and likely two separate stories. Clint Eastwood, being the master storyteller that he is, combined with some effortless acting by both Morgan Freeman as Nelson Mandela and Matt Damon as the national rugby team's captain Francois Pienaar, takes the seen-before story of sports bringing together a nation and makes it much more than just that.

There are in some ways, two stories being told here. The first is the story of Nelson Mandela but its not really the story of Mandela one would expect as it begins upon his release from prison. As a result, I still don't know why Mandela was in prison and remain confused as to how and ex-con could immediately be elected president of a nation. For this film, its not really important. What we're presented with is Mandela taking leadership over a nation that is divided. His first appearance at the rugby stadium is greeted with a mixture of boos and cheers, quite the contrast to how he's greeted at his last of the film.  The other story surrounds Francios Pienaar.  He too is challenged with leading, for him however, something on a much smaller scale. The impression I got was that the national rugby team, the Springboks, is not very good and they don't seem to have a coach (which is good because I didn't want to watch another movie about a coach bringing a team together for the greater good). Evidently however, they are good, they are just underachieving, they're not working together perhaps. By working as one, they can accomplish so much more.  And there in lies the message Mandela intends to spread throughout his nation by use of its common interest in sports.

Mandela preaches repeatedly that their nation needs inspiration and that it needs to be brought together. We believe this for two reasons. We see the different cultures, particularly the differences between races. Additionally, when Morgan Freeman tells us something, we believe him. Unfortunately, we don't really see any real convincing evidence as to why the country needs inspiration.  I, like I assume many audiences of this film, are not completely familiar with the goings-on in South Africa in the mid 1990s, therefore I couldn't embrace the real need the country had for inspiration. Either way, the story being told is a good one, so the reasons become less important. The story worked, even if it wasn't 100% complete.

The movie doesn't feel divided.  The Mandela story and the Pienaar story combine seamlessly and work together to make the movie work as a whole. Rather than having two stories running simultaneously and attempting to force connections between the two, Eastwood blends them, making them function integrally.   I always give enormous credit to Eastwood but equal credit is due to his actors in this film.  I'm not sure this is Matt Damon's best performance but it is the first of which I've been able to accept him as his character rather than as Matt Damon playing someone else. This is far from Freeman's best but he continuously makes acting look so easy. He becomes his character for so many reasons beyond the accent he employs.  Flashes of him in prison don't even raise thoughts of The Shawshank Redemption because he's so far from that character.

Invictus isn't anyone's finest work but it is a well above average film with well above average performances.  I anticipate Eastwood films as much as any other director and if less than great films like Gran Torino and Flags of our Fathers can't change that, then Invictus certainly won't.

The Blind Side (2009)

Directed by: John Lee Hancock
Starring: Sandra Bullock

*1/2

The only reason I saw this movie was to see what all the hype surrounding Sandra Bullock's performance was about.  I don't claim to know everything about movie or think that I'm always right but The Blind Side marks the second movie of the year that despite what word of mouth suggests, I was correct in assuming that its a bad movie.

Where to begin... I'll start with the film itself, as this is a review of the movie and not solely the performance of Bullock. Throughout the 128 minutes I had to endure, I found that not a single frame of this film was anything other than cliched.  Every element that makes movies like this fail made its way into this one. Its as if writer director John Lee Hancock watched Freedom Writers, Glory Road and Coach Carter (I haven't seen any of these for the same reason I shouldn't have watched The Blind Side) without anyone telling him that there were not good films to reference.  I could start reeling off lines of dialogue that aided in making this film as cliched as it is, but we've all heard them before... "you can do whatever you want to do"... So, I said one.

It appeared that Hancock took filmmaking 101 then stopped there. With a movie like this, I can't really fault him for avoiding risks and just sticking with pretty basic filmmaking sticking Quinton Aaron standing emotionless in front of medium shot gets really boring.  The Blind Side, however, is not a boring movie. If it were boring, it'd be easier to shut off. What it is instead, is bad.  Its expected that even in movies based on true stories are going to take some creative liberties, either with story or character. Its importatnt as life doesn't always portray the kind of drama that entertains. So assuming that's what happened here, I gave a few things the benefit of the doubt but I refused to accept this is a heart felt tale telling the true heartbreaking turned uplifting story of Michael Oher's life.

Is this movie racist? Well, no, its not but I could understand the argument.  The film tries to pawn off rich white people's differing opinions of a black boy on their side of town as the status quo of their time period in Memphis. I don't know if that worked but the film doesn't in any way try to be racist. What it is instead... is obnoxious. The gap between the accepting white people and those who don't understand thus don't want to help Michael is so wide that I started to wonder if it would work better if the film was opening racist. Had the characters said something along the lines of... "I won't help him because he's black" at least their motives would have been justified, even if not morally so.

And on to the performances... Sandra Bullock has received a lot of praise and numerous awards for her portrayal of Leigh Anne Tuohy.  Leigh Anne is a strong and emotional woman and Bullock definitely puts forth an emotional performance, if displaying the same emotion for two hours is still considered emotional, and a strong performance as well if that means doing well acting against the brick walls that are the other actors in the film. When Tim McGraw and Nick Saban were the second and third best performances in the film, your movie has issues.  I'm just kidding about Saban, he wasn't good, but he wasn't as bad as you'd think. I was actually more impressed with McGraw than I was with Bullock. Not that he was better, but on a sliding scale,  McGraw almost put forth a better effort than the more seasoned actress, Bullock.  Bullock was good. Part of me would tread, tread lightly, into suggesting that she was very good but being in the middle of such a bad movie made it very difficult for her to define herself. Its not unusual for a good performance to be in a bad movie, but this isn't one of those movies simply defined by a performance. This movie could never have expected to get such recognition thanks to Bullock. That being said, her performance is hardly worthy of the awards she's been getting and if she gets nominated for anything else, its purely due to a lack of options.

So I'm left with the question as to weather I'm glad I watched this movie.  I'm glad I now have my own opinion of Bullock's performance but I'm also annoyed that I didn't spend those two hours doing anything else.  I saw this film for the same reason I saw The Hangover... I was curious about all the hype. Unlike The Hangover however, I don't really understand why people seem to like this movie or why its made money. The Hangover has a really big demographic (all those people who love sucky movies), but the sports movie that isn't really about sports doesn't attract a huge audience... at least I didn't think it did and there's nothing else about this movie that suggests box office magic, or any kind of magic.

The Best of 2009 - Supporting Actor (Revised)

Yes, I've already posted my best supporting actors of 2009 but things change with each film I see. My apologizes to Robert Duvall and Martin Starr who really did turn in great performances but they turn out to be the 6th and 7th best of the year rather than the 4th and 5th.

Best Supporting Actor:

5. Matt Damon - Invictus

4. Alfred Molina - An Education

3. Anthony Mackie - The Hurt Locker

 2. James Gandolfini - Where the Wild Things Are

1. Christoph Waltz - Inglourious Basterds

Honorable Mentions:
Martin Starr - Adventureland
Robert Duvall - Crazy Heart
Peter Sarsgaard - An Education
Michael K. Williams - The Road

An Education (2009)

Directed by: Lone Sherfig

Starring: Carey Mulligan

****1/2

The moral of the story may very well have been you can have your cake and eat it too but I don't think that was the intention. Maybe a smart person can get away with a few more mistakes than your average joe is a more appropriate through line for An Education. Carey Mulligan plays Jenny. An intelligent, attractive, Oxford hopeful who gets swept away by David, an older man, played by Peter Sarsgaard. His charm and tastes give Jenny a glimpse into the world she's imagined exists beyond her routine life. A world to which she was prepared to take the long road. The shortcut David provides creates consequences for Jenny that seemingly go unpunished.

There were several aspects of this film that I didn't really buy into but they were small aspects, hardly enough to ruin what is a great movie. Essentially, the problems with this movie proved to be the films irrelevant aspects. What David does for a living may have its reasons but in the context of the film as a whole, it wasn't important, therefore the fact that I didn't really like it, didn't really matter. The same goes for how Sally Hawkins short scene unfolds. Despite the conflict in her words, what she's saying is really just an extension of what we already know. Pardon my vagueness as I don't intend to divulge the spoiler that really allows this film any kind of mystery.

That mystery is in David. He charms Jenny and her parents to the point where a marriage proposal is fully accepted (something else I'm not sure I bought into). He seems to have good intentions for Jenny but some dramatic irony tells us that he isn't 100% honest. His lies are masked by his charm however and I was even swept up by it. Knowing how a movie must work, I suspected there was more to David than met the eye but it becaming an internal argument with myself. Perhaps this film would go a new direction. Perhaps this older man was the right path for Jenny. She doesn't make very valid points to her teachers who claim that hard work and acceptance to Oxford is the only way she'll go on to lead a boring life as a teacher or a secretary. Her life with David is fun and exciting and she's doing the things she's always dreamed of doing. There is tension throughout, but she appears genuinely happy. Why disrupt that kind of happiness for a character who so clearly deserves it.

Carey Mulligan is just great in this film. As quickly as she decided a relationship with David was going to happen, I was convinced she wanted it. Mulligan managed to wear her emotions on her sleeve without being overly emotional or obvious. In other words, she portrayed herself as Jenny completely. Her internal struggle was the conflict of the film, something that would only be possible with a strong performance. She's aided by great supporting performances as well, most notably by Sarsgaard but more brilliantly by Alfred Molina as her father. An Education could be catagorized as a bit of a comedy, thanks mostly to Molina but additionally thanks to the very smart writing by Nick Hornby. Rosemand Pike plays a ditzy, blond friend of David yet she's not over the top so we're not exposed to the cliche stupid remarks, but rather some very smartly written, stupid remarks.

Jenny and David's relationship was believable which, of course was the most important of all the relationships in the movie. There were others, however, that fell short. David and his friends Danny (Domenic Cooper) and Helen (Pike) seemed strange. While they shared his tastes, they didn't really appear to be the types of superficial people he's spend his time with. Then again, there was much unknown about who David was. Another reason these relationships may have left something to be desired is that so many of their scenes together; their trip to Oxford and Paris; came across very montage-like. They were not montages, but they seemed to breeze through so much in order to get to important conversations between David and Jenny. This turned out to be a necessary tool in order to continuously establish that most important relationship, but it did leave the others in the dust a bit.

Yet another great film from 2009, filled with outstanding performances. An Education takes a pretty simple story and makes it great with great writing, great characters and performances portraying them. While I'm not going to send any awards the way of Lone Sherfig, she structured the movie well. Aside from some questionable decisions, particularly the end of the film, she did her part. Everyone else, exceeded theirs.

Best of 2009 - Best Actor

Its easy to get excited about a collection of great movies. Its rare to get excited about a collection of great performances. The best actor catagory this year is full to the brim and while that makes it hard to compile a list, it meant there was a lot of entertaining work to see this past year. There was no Daniel Day Lewis type performance this year but in luei of one legendary one, there was a lot of great ones.

Best Actor:

5. Souleymane Sy Savane - Goodbye Solo
Narrowly beating out Jeremy Renner is the star of Goodbye Solo. Unlike the Jamie Foxx, driving a cab in Collateral and pining for something he'll never make happen for himself, (not discrediting anything about that movie or Foxx's performance) Souleymane Sy Savane plays the eternal optimist. He loves everyday no matter what he's doing, yet still strives for bigger and better things.



4. Sharlto Copley - District 9
Without the performance of Copley, District 9 would have gone from an above average summer movie to Transformers 2. He created a depth of character that is so often absent from this type of movie and he made it more than just a movie with CGI, car chases and explosions. Credit the writing, yes, but credit Copley with really making a movie more than it perhaps was worthy of being.




3. Nicolas Cage - Bad Lueitenant - Port of Call: New Orleans
The good Nic Cage came to play this year and its always a pleasure when he does. The critiques of Cage's work is strange to me because, yes, he makes bad movies, but no one says you have to see those. Skip them and see movies like Leaving Las Vegas, Adaptation and most recently Bad Lueitenant where an off the hook Cage really is, well, so good at being bad.





2. Jeff Bridges - Crazy Heart
The most emotional and likely Oscar winning performance of the year is that of Jeff Bridges as Bad Blake. Like Copley, Bridges made a mediocre movie worth watching. Having seen over the years the range of Bridges, its no surprise that he was able to accept this role, but to flesh it out and define it in the context of a script that didn't give him a whole lot to work with is his greatest achievement.


1. Patton Oswalt - Big Fan
Unconventional as it this pick may be, Patton Oswalt turned in the best performance of 2009. His innocence masks his crazy and we only know that both exist thanks to the way he carries this movie. The movie unfolds in a way that would not be necessarily believable had it not been for Oswalt convincing me. Part, crazed sports fan, part sad lonely man, makes an interesting character and one that Oswalt nailed.

Best of 2009 - Supporting Actress

I'm not as confident or as happy with this list as I was with my chosen best supporting actors of 2009. Either way, the performances of these five supporting ladies were well above average and worthy of recognition. Full disclosure, I've not seen Precious or the highly acclaimed, award snatching performance by Monique so of course, she is not among my best supporting actresses.

Best Supporting Actress:

5. Diane Krugar - Inglourious Basterds
Kruger's performance as a German spy/actress is indeed a highlight of a good but what I consider an overrated movie. While she doesn't quite reach Christoph Waltz status in her performance she has an intriguing way of blending scandal and sexuality with humor, kind of the way Waltz blends said humor with evil.

4. Zooey Deschanel - 500 Days of Summer
Deschanel is an actress I've always liked enough to ignore performances the likes of hers in The Happening. Here in 500 Days of Summer she proves why I can do that. There is a subtlety to her performance. An important subtlty without which her character could very well be over the top and annoying. Instead she's a Penny Lane type girl that's impossible not to fall for.

3. Anna Kendrick - Up in the Air
I don't think Kendrick is as good as everyone has hyped her as being. That being said, that's perhaps only because I don't think she was the best supporting actress in the film as many do. Kendrick actually plays her character very realistically, which is important because you could argue she is still too young to be playing a young up and comer. Like many performances, there is one scene that can make or break it, and Kendrick's critique of the George Clooney's characters way of living is great.

2. Marcia Jean Kurtz - Big Fan
Here's a performance that won't only go unrecognized, but its been mostly unnoticed. I'm going to be a big advocate of this film and the performances in it as the Oscars approach, so Academy... if you are listening, Marcia Jean Kurtz's portrayal of an old, tired, no bullshit, New York woman is fantastic. Yes, it is somewhat of a cliched character, but that's not her fault. She delivers.

1. Vera Farmiga - Up in the Air
Here is not just the best female performance of this film, but the best performance period. Farmiga redeems her God-awful Boston accent in The Departed with a smart, quick-witted and sexy love interest. Far from routine, her character doesn't hold Clooney's character back at all, but rather embraces his lifestyle and joins in on the party. The what has become somewhat infamous scene when she meets Clooney really is worthy of praise as she matches witts with Clooney. But for the rest of the film, she wins.

Following (1998)

Directed by: Christopher Nolan
Starring: Jeremy Theobald

****1/2

A small part of what makes Christopher Nolan such a great director is his ability to find new ways to entertain his audience with each film he makes. Beside's the obvious narrative structure, Memento is a brilliant murder mystery. Even the Batman films are very individual of each other aside from the characters. There are a lot of similarities in his filmmaking and storytelling however, all of which found their origin in his first film, Following.

The film follows Bill (as he introduces himself). His narration, which is actually an explanation to an unknown character explains his interest in following random strangers, a idea and concept so simple that its both brilliant and amazing that it hasn't really been done. The question is would this concept work as well as it does if not for what Nolan does best. We get inside the mind of Bill. We don't completely understand why he follows people but its not due to lack of exposition, its because Bill isn't completely sure why he does it. All he knows is that he's interested in people, in who they are and where they are going.

The film runs only 70 minutes long so expectedly, its not long after I'm convinced I want to start following people that I'm introduced to the consequences of such an activity. This is where we meet Cobb, well dressed and smart, who confronts Bill looking for answers as to who he is and why he's been following him. A logical question for anyone who's being followed to ask but Cobb has bigger concerns as his duffel bag is full of stolen materials. Its nothing overly valuable, Cobb simply robs people's homes for the thrill and to shake people up. An aspect of what Cobb does is of particular interest to Bill and that's learning who people are on a much deeper level than what one could learn just by following. Photos, personal belongings and clothing are much more telling and thus much more interesting.

Most of this film surrounds Bill trying to make sense of everything that's going on. As good as Nolan is, without the performance of Theobald, we'd not get the truth of what is going on inside Bill's head. The eyes are the gateway to Nolan's most common theme, the mind. His exploration of the mind exists in all his films. Memento studies a character who's mind is debilitated, Insomnia surrounds a character who's mind can't function normally thanks to lack of sleep, The Prestige is just one big mind game disguised as a magic trick and Batman surrounds mind control in both films. Don't even get me started on what's to be the greatest movie ever. His soon to come Inception is also about what goes on in someone's mind.

Something else we've seen before is a Nolan film not moving chronologically. Now and then, we see Bill, clean cut and shaven, unlike we see him early in the film, and even occasionally he's beaten and bruised. Here is where the mystery is introduced. Its introduced so subtley however, that's its almost uninteresting. This is both a flaw and a strength of the film. On one hand, by not divulging too much information we are intriguied enough to move forward with the film but on the other hand, the scenes themselves aren't all as entertaining as the rest of the film. As the scenes come together everything makes sense but on their own, I found them almost too story telling which is very much unlike the rest of the movie which relies on mood and emotion.

Following leaves little to be desired. There is a very powerful ending that made me do a complete 180 on my desire to start following people. If the film says anything on the surface its, dont' follow the wrong person but that's not what this movie is about. Its another, or should I say the first of Nolan's character studies. It could be about the consequences of anything we do or more accurately, our physical capabilities are no match for what our mind can stir up. Made for only six thousand dollars, slightly less than the hundred eighty-five million spent on The Dark Knight but its just as smart. Maybe its not as good but it was certainly a sign of things to come, much like the Batman logo sticker on the door of Bill's apartment.

In the Loop (2009)

Directed by: Armando Iannucci
Starring: Tom Hollander

***1/2

In the Loop is funny, strangely entertaining and kind of confusing. The general premise is somewhat simple but the motives of each character, character's who are difficult to keep track of in the first place, get unintentionally disguised by the fast paced banter and thick British accents. In a nutshell, the ensemble cast of quirks in this film are pulling every string they can reach to prevent a war they they almost start by accident.

I suspect there is a certain amount of realism lining both the story and characters. Politics can't be all smart talk we get from John Grisham and such. When someone's in a bad mood because of the screwing up that seemingly goes on all around, he's inclined to say f-you to a few people. Despite my being lost amongst these characters, I did presume that the actions and their consequences were not only realistic, but probable. A simple essay that unintentionally suggests war is upon us and a minister of foriegn relations accidently suggesting that war is unforseeable are both presented in a believable enough way that we can get past the fact that the essay was written but what seems to be a glorified intern (why is anyone listening to her?) and that minister of foriegn relations is a bit of a Basil Fawlty (why is anyone listening to him?).

Trying to keep up with this movie was part of what it difficult to really like, however the fast pace is what kept the comedy fresh and witty. Unfortunately, I got the impression that the filmmakers got caught up in their fast-paced banter and had little interest in adding any feeling or depth to this movie. The most of any of this we see is the breakup of a relationship I completely forgot even existed. Most of the characters are heartless, a couple are sympathetic but only because they are so berraded for their mistakes by those who are heartless. Hearing f-bombs dropped every other word is pretty funny at first... eventually its just mean.

The fact that a movie that essentially surrounded politics from start to finish entertained me is saying something at least. I think that's why as much as the film didn't get bogged down with heart and soul, it didn't get bogged down by real politics. Yes, its realistic is some ways, but it wasn't like watching a political debate, even when there was a political debate going on. It was much more in the vein of Dr. Strangelove than say The Manchurian Candidate. Ultimately, I appreciated the fact that I didn't have to listen to the differing politics of the characters and I could laugh at them (most of the time) just getting frustrated with how they all have to clean up after someone else's mess. I wasn't fully invested in any of the characters or the story but I was entertained from start to finish so for that, I enjoyed the movie.

The Best of 2009 - Supporting Actor

So while there are still a small number of films to see, my best of 2009 lists are pretty ironed out and its time to unveil the top 5s in performances followed by the top 10 movies of the year. 2009 was a fantastic year for movies, in my opinion, one of the best years of the decade and its unfortunate that some great films and performances have been left of the list.

Getting things started are the best supporting performances by an actor for 2009:

5. Robert Duvall - Crazy Heart

Duvall was the lightest part of what was a rather heavy movie. His character's enthusiasm was refreshing and his performance was a reminder of what a great actor he is.

4. Martin Starr - Adventureland
Starr is an actor who's always in the background but in Adventureland he really defines himself as not only a funny looking kid prime for ridicule, but proves he can add some serious emotional depth to a character he plays. He's heartbreaking without seizing to make you laugh.

3. Anthony Mackie - The Hurt Locker

Much has been made about the performance of Jeremy Renner in The Hurt Locker but Mackie's soldierish confidence adds more realism to this movie than Renner does. At the point when Makie's performance could make or break (if you've seen it, you know) Makie not only makes it, but kills it.

2. James Gandolfini - Where the Wild Things Are

I'm of the school of thought that it shouldn't matter what kind of computer imaging goes into what your character looks like. If the performance underneath it all is good enough for recognition, then recognize it. For an actor best known for his ruthless mafia ways, Gandolfini changes gears and creates a character lovable enough for children and complex enough for adults, much like the movie itself.

1. Christoph Waltz - Inglorious Basterds

There won't be many arguments here as Waltz steals every single frame in which he appears. A performance like this makes a strong case for abandoning the "supporting" catagory as he was just plain and simple, one of the best actors of the year. The bad guys have been dominating the supporting actor catagory for a few years now with Ledger and Bardem redefining evil but Waltz, like any Tarantino character, flips evil on its head and gives us a new look at humanity.

The Cove (2009)

Directed by: Louie Psihoyos

**

The Cove is a documentary that really didn't know what it was trying to say. It was effective in covering most of its agendas but anytime I started to become invested with something, I was presented with another issue, perhaps big enough and relevant enough for a documentary of its own.

The key component, the primary issue that is focused on in The Cove is the mistreatment of dolphins in the town of Taiji, Japan. I use the term mistreatment lightly as essentially what is going on in Taiji is the slaughter of dolphins.  Through the use of hidden camera, thermal imaging and some serious covert missions, a group of activists attempt to raise international attention towards inhumane goings on in this small cove.

Before we are really exposed to this, but after its introduced, the film changes gears and we learn the story first hand of Ric O'Barry, a dolphin trainer who worked with the original Flipper and started what has become a multi-million dollar industry keeping dolphins in captivity. Now, a wiser man who understands the dangers of captivity, his sole mission in life is to free dolphins, to save them and to fight for them. O'Barry is genuine and understandable. He's not cliche in the sense that Michael Vick now donates money to help dogs. O'Barry never harmed dolphins, he simply took part in the creation of an industry that has evolved into something bigger and badder.  So at this point, it is suggested that the cove full of trapped dolphins in Japan is set up for the use of capturing and selling live dolphins to Sea World and 'Swim with the Dolphins' type facilities.  If that is the case, why all the black hat operations? Why do the people who work in this cove hate anyone with a camera and do whatever they can to get them arrested so they'll go away. And if they are hiding something worse, why spend time telling us that captivity is bad?

Perhaps it was just a preface or a lead in of sorts. The film could have been preparing us as an audience by saying, yes, captivity is harmful to dolphins but you haven't seen anything yet. That could be... so show us then? What is going on? What are they hiding? Why is it so important that these activists expose these people to the world? It turns out that people need to know what's going on because in Japan, dolphin meat is eaten, yet contains a toxic level of mercury. As a result, children in Japan are being diagnosed with a extremely debilitating disease called Minamata.  This is not only important, but relevant and informative. I like seafood, I wouldn't be apposed to trying dolphin... well I wouldn't have. But I'd prefer not to have this disease that sounds as if its unpreventable should you each the diseased animal.  So, I appreciate the useful information but if you are simply making a human interest story then get off your high horse and stop pretending its the dolphins you care about.

Finally, the activists covert mission is completed, cameras are in place and recordings of a blood stained cove and hundreds of slaughtered dolphins are exposed to the world. It was gruesome, but it appeared that no dolphins were being spared for the sake of selling them to Sea World, so I'm not sure what that half hour of the movie was all about.

Director and activist Louie Psihoyos, Ric O'Barry, free divers, surfers (one of whom is Hayden Panettiere, not sure if its called a cameo when it lasts seconds and is totally irrelevant) all preach how important it is that these dolphin killers be stopped. Yes, a first and important step is to raise awareness and I'm sure they haven't stopped trying, but there is very little heart to this movie. The heart and passion that I'm certain these people have towards what they are doing does not translate and as a result, so many of them come across as fake and annoying. A powerful issue doesn't make a powerful movie by itself.  I felt like The Cove expected its cause to have such a universal appeal that the kind of effort put into said cause wouldn't need to be applied to making a movie.  It appears that that idea is working to some extent as this film has gotten a lot of recognition but it didn't work for me. I wonder, is the film getting the recognition, or is the issue it surrounds? Either way, the filmmakers accomplished what they set out to do with the movie.

Trucker (2008)

Directed by: James Mottern
Starring: Michelle Monaghan

**1/2

Middle of the road character pieces like Trucker often times rely on a performance to carry the film and mask a mediocre story.  Fortunately, in Trucker, the story does have some depth and originality to it. Unfortunately, contrary to so much I've read about her performance, Michelle Monaghan is not very good here.  She manages to escape the beauty queen look and sidekick role she's had to this point but for me Trucker only convinced me that she's more suitable in that capacity. She manages simplicty just fine but when real drama ensues, she really drops the ball.

Monaghan plays Diane Ford who's life takes a dramatic turn when, follow me on this, her son, Peter (Jimmy Bennet) comes to live with her because his Dad Len (Benjamin Bratt) has cancer and his current wife can't take care of Peter because her mother just died and she needs to go be with her family... deep breath... Diane hasn't taken care of her son in ten years since she and Len called it quits and she went on with her life on the road to nowhere driving a truck, while Len took full custody of Peter. In those ten years, Peter has aged to eleven, old enough to understand that his mother is a bitch and abandoned him. Diane doesn't hide the fact that she didn't want a child and really doesn't seem to have any regrets about leaving. She acts as if she likes her job. She's owns her own rig, she travels all over the country, plans to soon pay off her house, yet despite her psuedo happiness, she's not shy about claiming she wants to change. Its not for her son, however. When it comes to him, she expects him to understand her lifestyle and she uses that as an excuse to avoid the responsibilty that comes with him. A lot of this story falls into the relm of cliche but where it gets somewhat original is in the viewpoint we're exposed to.

Typically, a movie surrounding the custody of an 11-year old will cover the relationship said child has with the remaining parent. In films like Kramer vs. Kramer (a much better movie and shame on me for comparing) the mother who leaves is painted as the villian and while, yes we do eventually hear Streep's explanation, its for the sake of getting her son back, so who knows how true it is. In Trucker, we get a very real and believable idea of how the villian lives. Diane isn't portrayed as a villian, just someone who got on with her life with out a certain part of it being there. The arrangement she made with her ex-husband appeared to have worked and it left everyone content, if not happy.

This being a character piece, it was important that we believed in the characters. Despite the performance of Monaghan, I do think this movie succeeded in this area. Jimmy Bennet is clearly a child actor, but at the same time he came across as an angry kid who's dealt with enough growing up that he understands and reacts to things better and more intelligently than most his age. This may not have come across through a young Christian Bale-style performance, but either way, it came across and credit is due. Possibly the best performance in the film (and this isn't to suggest its all that great, just good) is that by Nathan Fillion who plays Diane's friend (only friend) and neighbor Runner. Even though he seems to have adopted a Matthew McConaghy southern accent for no reason, his character is steady as it goes and he manages to add some structure to both Diane's life and the film itself.  I believe his purpose in the film was to make Diane's changing relationship with her son more believable. I'm not sure it worked out, but Fillion definitely did his part.

I'd heard some interesting things about this film, mostly Monaghan's turn from pretty face to pretty good actress.  I read that Demi Moore was first considered for the role of Diane. Well, I think Monaghan was a better choice for a few reasons. Even with some successful films under her belt, she's still unknown enough to work as Diane but again, she really failed to hit the important dramatic notes that would have made this film much more emotionally charged. It was very difficult to invest myself fully in the relationships, in the conflicts and ultimately in the story when everytime something important happened, I was distracted by Monaghan's inability to capture the intensity of the scene.   First time writer-director James Mottern made a lot of good decisions with this movie from how to develop relationships and where to end them, but I don't think Monaghan was among them.

Trucker

Goodbye Solo (2008)

Directed by: Ramin Bahrani
Starring: Souleymane Sy Savane

****

Optimism is contagious but like anything, one must be accepting of it. If any character has made me appreciate life, its the fun loving cabbie named Solo, played beautifully by Souleymane Sy Savane. There's not really a glaring reason for Solo's optimism but that is what makes it so real. Here is a person who loves his family despite the problems his marriage is having, appreciates his job because it allows him to provide for them but aspires to bigger and better things and believes that positive thinking is a key component to success. He is, essentially the opposite of William (Red West), whom he befriends after making plans to chauffer him to Blowing Rock on August 20th where William intends to kills himself.

There is a mysterious element to this movie that really works. This doesn't even include the mystery that unfolds at the end of the movie that is nothing short of brilliantly executed. Solo is outgoing and talkative, William is not. So Williams plans are only conveyed to us through Solo's interpretation. We believe what's going to happen as much as Solo does but the way we grow attached the these characters, we're left with the thought that maybe nothing bad is going to happen, afterall, we don't have an admission from William. All signs point to yes however. William sells his apartment, closes his bank account and seemingly cuts all ties he has in the world. All except for the one he regrettably makes with Solo.

Interestingly, there is a strong tie with the characters in this film, but for the sake of the story, I was never 100% convinced of what I wanted to happen. Without giving anything away, part of me felt the story would be to happy if William lived, but thought it could be too sad if he dies. Having both aspects of a movie work so well that I was pitted against myself like that is rare and effective and its a real credit to the mood created by director Ramin Bahrani. His previous critically acclaimed film Chop Shop is on my list of movies I really want to see, but my enjoyment of Goodbye Solo piques my interest even more.

Motives aside, I found William to be very relatable. He hired Solo to drive him somewhere and nothing more but Solo's good intentions conflict with William's desire to be left in peace. As personable as Solo is, there were times when I sided with William and wanted Solo to understand that sometimes people don't want a friend, they don't want company, they don't want to sleep on your couch, they just want to be brought to a motel like they asked.  William is an understanding person however, and despite his stubbornness, he does show signs of acceptance of Solo's friendship. When is is most open to it, we recognize the effect that Solo has on people.

This is not a one tracked story of a Senegalian cab driver who befriends an old white man. That Senegalian cab driver has a lot of layers. Cliche as it may be, Solo doesn't want to be a cab driver his whole life. He wants to become a flight attendent, something we learn he is very qualified for as he speaks a number of languages and studies hard. His support system is not very big however as with a baby on the way, his wife doesn't like the idea of Solo traveling, but that doesn't mean giving up his dreams. So with the reluctant help from his newest friend, Solo continues to study.

Solo is such a refreshing character that he brings light to even the darkest themes that this film presents. Lines of dialogue as simple as "You don't want to do that, tomorrow will be a better day..." ring so true out of Solo's mouth because we believe that he believes that is truth. That is the way he lives his life every moment. That even when he and his wife have problems large enough to put Solo into a motel for a night, he relishes the opportunity to get to know William better and to really focus on his studying. This would seem irresponsible to some people, but its also realistic.

Goodbye Solo continues my race to see as many 2009 movies as I can before the Oscars. (Technically, this is a 2008 release but if its on critics '09 lists, then its an '09 movie for me). Where last year's films endlessly disappointed me, Goodbye Solo adds to '09s very impressive resume filled with great movies and performances like that of Souleymane Sy Savane who may have single handedly influenced me to apply for flight attendant school... not really, but he was great.

Moon (2009)

Directed by: Duncan Jones
Starring: Sam Rockwell

***

Moon is one of the most difficult movies I've ever had to review. From start to finish, the film reveals new and intriguing aspects of its plot and to delve too deep into any of them would ruin the experience it brings. What I can say is that I'm not sure if Moon is a great movie because I'm not sure if director Duncan Jones really accompished what he was trying to do. Because I'm not sure is why I believe he didn't succeed but it also suggests that he was close enough to make me question it.

One thing I can talk about is the very interesting performance of Sam Rockwell. Calling it interesting is not necessarily suggesting that its anything but good but without giving too much away, there is some trick photography going on in this film and for the majority of the film, Rockwell acts against himself.  Whether its split personality, or he's crazy or has a twin or what remains to be scene, but Rockwell 1 is very, very good. Rockwell 2 isn't as good. Part of this is because Rockwell 1 is a much more obvious part to play and allows for more freedom in the character. Rockwell 2 is more subdued. This kind of suggests that Rockwell played each character exactly the way they should have been played but I don't know if that was necessarily the case. It always looked like more effort was put into one.

The only other character in this film was Hal... I mean, Gertie.  A robot voiced by the incredibly distracting Kevin Spacey. This was by far the worst and most annoying part of this film. Not to mention it tuDunrned out to be kind of unnecessary.  Jones tried to add any kind of debth to Gertie by having little smiley face expressions suggesting how the robot was feeling.  That was just kind of childish and goofy and in the context of what really is a very serious movie with themes about loss, abandonment, lonliness and dilusions... the yellow smiley face didn't really work for me. Knowing Kevin Spacey's voice was also distracting. Gertie would have been much more effective if it were unrecognizable.

What else can I talk about...? Set design was very good, but at this point in the technological film world, a good stage setup doesn't really garner up interest anymore.  Moon is a good movie. Its not a great movie. I think it really had the potential however. Duncan Jones knows how to do a lot of things right. Suspense, drama, excitement and mystery are all present in this film. Bringing all those elements full circle is what he was missing. Yet, as I said, he wasn't far off and I look forward to more of his work.

The Girlfriend Experience (2009)

Directed by: Steven Soderbergh
Starring: Sasha Grey

***

I was more interested in the concept of The Girlfriend Experience than I was in any desire to be entertained or wowed by a movie. In that way, I was satisfied. I think its interesting that with the resume Soderbergh has put together over the last ten years he's not above going backwards in a sense. With this film, he focused more on the art of concept and filmmaking rather than the more routine and expected plot and performance. Why otherwise would he cast porn star Sasha Grey as Chelsea and unknown Chris Santos as her boyfriend Chris.

Soderbergh does enhance the filmmaking experience with his color schemes and creative shots. Everything really does look beautiful which is consistent with the lifestyles we're exposed to throughout. Chelsea is a high-class call girl of sorts. She, for a price and a steep one at that, isn't just hired by jon's for sex but for the whole girlfriend experience... dinner, a movie, some good conversation... then sex. She of course deals with very well-to-do clients who can afford her services. Chris is a personal trainer and while that doesn't seem as profitable and its certainly much more normal that what Chelsea does, he has some rich clients as well, therefore has money. Everyone in this movie has money, but that doesn't prevent any of them from going on endlessly about the state of the countries economy. I suspect this conversation is had so repeatedly in order to suggest that Chelsea and Chris' clients are all essentially corporate America, that one is really no different than the other aside from their looks and personality... things that are usually of very little interest to either one of them.

I respect what Soderbergh is doing with this film but I can't say that he succeeded 100%. The performance of Sasha Grey, or lack there of, did hurt what he was trying to do. Not that a good performance was really necessary, but a performance did need to exist. She is so dead pan (and not the good, funny kind) and emotionless in every scene that it almost makes it difficult to figure out what she's doing. In other words, when she's with her boyfriend (an escort's boyfriend must have something that makes her happy) she's straight faced and quiet. When she's with clients, its the same routine. She offers so little that it seems she's made no effort. After seeing her try to cry however, I'm kind of glad she didn't exert too much the rest of the time.

What did succeed was that Soderbergh effectively commented on the economy and how its effecting people without being preachy. He also threw in the irony of rich people pay thousands of dollars to essentially talk about how bad the economy with someone who really could care less. She says she keeps books, but something tells me Chelsea's not in a high tax bracket.

There is a lot of fluff that is mixed into the rest of the movie. The film jumps around chronologically and I'm not sure why. The only thing I can think of is that there's not enough going on to sustain interest unless we're introduced to something only to find out how it happened later. Its inconsistent with what I respected Soderbergh for attempting. There's not a black and white story here, its a commentary, its an experiment and for the most part its a good one, but to then fill space with unneccessary tricks was really a waste of time.

I'm absolutely certain this movie would have served better as a short. It'd seem strange for the director of Ocean's 11, 12 and 13 to start making shorts, but as I said, I think this film in general was an experiement and what could be considered a backwards step in the career of someone who has no more steps to climb. I think its great that Soderbergh made this movie. I don't think it did everything it was supposed to but I expected a conceptual and that's what I got. Not to mention its probably Sasha Grey's best movie.

The Hurt Locker (2009)

Directed by: Kathryn Bigelow

Starring: Jeremy Renner

****1/2

Politics aside, The Hurt Locker is a really good movie. I'm so glad director Kathryn Bigelow had the same approach and left the politics of our current situation with those camel f***ers in Iraq (to quote Walter Sobchak) to the wayside and focused on what turned out to be a very personal story and a daily fight for survival. The structure of the story is at times almost absent but the substance of the characters is actually very structured here and I really appreciated how Bigelow really stayed true to what she was trying to do and didn't get mixed up with good guys and bad guys. Of course we side with the Americans anyway... USA, USA!

After the death of their bomb difuser, played by Guy Pierce in his second small role this year, Bravo company is forced to adapt to his unconvential replacement, Seargent Will James (Jeremy Renner). James doesn't take even close to the same precautions that his predecessor employed much to the chagrin of Seargents Sanborn and Eldrigdge played by Anthony Mackie and Brian Geraghty respectively. The three soldiers are what is more commonly referred to as the bomb squad. Their sole mission is to report to a bomb site and difuse both the bomb itself and the situation. There's a strict routine that's to be followed in order to ensure everyone's safety but James style threatens that safety but despite his "wild man" style, there is one thing he understands above all. His job is to difuse bombs.

The film also understands this and uses it to enhance the journey of Sgt. James. When James is doing his job, things seem to go right. Suspense mounts and scenes are tense and gripping but we get the early impression that James is very good at what he does and he's not going to change the way he does it regardless of who it makes uncomfortable. When James strays from what he's out there to do, that is when things take turns for the worse. This isn't here to tell us that soldiers on Iraq are only there to follow orders and that they do so or people die. Its not telling us this because this isn't a war movie, not anywhere but on the surface. This is a personal journey of three men all of whom are individually defined. There are some aspects of each character that are left to be desired but overall, we learn what we need to about why James, Sanborn and Eldridge are on this journey, how they feel about being there and what they left behind and whether or not they want to get back to it.

The first half of this movie is repetative. Its one bomb difusing mission after the next, each time, the bomb is bigger, the difusing is harder and the surroundings are more dangerous. At that point in the film, I began to question if this is all we could get out of a war movie with no politics. A collection of very entertaining and well shot scenes. From that point on, after we spent a little more time than necessary learning what these characters do, we really learn who these characters are and what's important to them. There is a very stark contrast between the three of them and their differences definitely create some drama but Bigelow is careful not to bog us down with cliche arguments and Michael Bay type cheesiness. Early in the film, Sanborn stands over a box of his former squad leaders belongings. He steps back and looks at it. I caught myself saying, Michael Bay would have him salute the box now... Bigelow doesn't, it was nice.

The end of this film surprised me. It was so disciplined that to see it go in the complete opposite direction was frustrating, especially when there was a perfectly good spot to end after Sanborn gives a very heartfelt speech about what he wants in life (Anthony Mackie's great performance was really highlighted here). To then head back to the real world and see James shopping with his wife and son was so unnecessary. The mundaneness of life isn't important. I know James is an adreniline junkie and that after difusing bombs for a living, what could possibly live up to that, I also already knew that he doens't really love his wife so why bother toying with the overused theme of life made more sense over there...

I'd only seen one of Bigelow's films prior to The Hurt Locker and she wasn't on my must-see director list after K-19: The Widowmaker but this movie really proves she knows what she's doing. The docu-drama style is fine but its subtlty of some of her shots that really distinguish this film. When we catch a glimpse of a sniper or a bomb on the ground, suspense really mounts. Nothing is unmotivated. I think she's very deserving of a best director nomination if not the Oscar itself. She isn't self-aware the way Tarantino is with Basterds so that could count against her but the subtlety of her direction should not go unnoticed.

Big Fan (2009)

Directed by: Robert Seigel
Starring: Patton Oswalt

****

Big Fan is one of those movies like my recently reveiwed Humpday, that if you buy into, you'll love. Buying into Humpday was more difficult but was probably a better movie, but its close. It doesn't take nearly the effort to buy into Big Fan but once I did, I was pleasently rewarded with a dark, at times comical, and frighteningly realistic portrayal of what would happen to a sports fan if his favorite player beat him up.

The realistic aspects of this film aide in accepting the bit more far fetched parts. Patton Oswalt plays Paul Aufiero, a die hard New York Giants fan. Like so many football fans can understand, Sunday's are holidays, football is all thats important and the sixteen games are all of the upmost importance. This is about all the excitement Paul has in his life. He lives with his mother, he works in a parking garage, he's consistently pestered by his rich, lawyer brother and brother's surgically enhanced wife to do something with his life and to top it off, the only people who even know he exists outside of this family and one fellow Giants fan friend are Sports Talk Radio show hosts whom he calls with a script of Giants smack talk every night. Oswalt plays this lonely, somewhat stupid and delussional sports fanatic perfectly in what could be one of the most underrated performances of the year and what definitely is one of the best of the year.

There are a lot of little things that an audience needs to buy into in order to accept this film for what it is. The little things are made invisible by Oswalt. The simple idea of seeing his favorite player Quantrell Bishop at a gas station and following him into a strip club before confronting him seems too stupid for even the biggest fan to do. Well, Oswalt not only convinces us that he is stupid, but also more than just the biggest fan. He tries everything to meet Bishop until finally he just approaches him before all hell breaks loose and Paul's literal way of life is threatened... not to mention his actual life.

The larger aspects of this film and the heart of the story are the more difficult parts to buy into. The movie begs the question, if your favorite player hurt you, would he still be your favorite player? Would you still cheer for his team... a team you've cheered for religiously your whole life? And mostly, would you expect your favorite player to be punished appropriately? The answers Paul has to these questions could very well differ from what mine or anyones would but at the same time, this movie and again, Oswalt, does a great job in creating a character and a world in which this character lives that isn't black and white. Paul may not have a good life, but he seems satisfied or at the very least, accepting of his life, especially during football season. I got the impression that with something to look forward to and invest himself in, family and career... the things his mother preaches are most important in life, aren't all that important to him.

Watching this movie, its important to understand that, yes, it is a movie and therefore things can happen for the sake of the drama. Everything unfolds in this film very mythodically and purposefully, thus making it very real. Had Paul been a successfully married, season ticket holding fan, the internal conflicts he's faced with probably wouldn't ring true. Its important that I felt sorry for Paul even though, on the surface, he didn't spend time feeling sorry for himself.

I don't think Big Fan had quite the strength throughout to be a five-star caliber film. There were times when the movie dragged and there were several occasions when I had to deal with the same thing happening over and over. It didn't take me long to understand that his lawyer brother wanted Paul to sue Bishop but they kept reminding me. I also figured out after the third time that Paul calls the radio station every night in response to Philadelphia Phil's trash talk and his mother could have been a little less cliche with her disappointment in Paul. These weren't necessary mistakes in the film, they were perhaps just time fillers. The movie only runs 88 minutes long so there did need to be something. Unfortunately, that something was the one downfall of an otherwise great movie.

Julie & Julia (2009)

Directed by: Nora Ephron

Starring: Meryl Streep, Amy Adams

***

My primary reason for seeing this movie was for the performance of Meryl Streep as Julia Child. I didn't expect a bad movie either, in fact, I had heard good things. Neither Streep or the movie disappointed as both lived up to their repuation. Its the aspects of this film that I heard very little about which suprised me in both good and bad ways.

Julie & Julia is essentially two films tied together as one. It is the story of Julia Child as she and her husband Paul (Stanley Tucci) live in France and she learns how to cook and eventually co-writes her cook book, The Art of Mastering French Cooking. Some forty years later, Julie Powell, living in Queens above a pizza parlor with her husband Eric (Chris Messina) decides to cook her way through said book and blog about it. Both storys are true and both women are well portrayed. I heard a lot about how Streep outperforms Adams emmensely in this film and that any ideas that Adams could be the next Streep were put to rest. Well, this isn't really fare to Adams as I think she's very good in this movie. What's unfair about it is that Streep could very obviously play her character well as Julia Child had a very distinguishable voice and personality. Amy Adams had to play an average New York City woman. Who Child was is well documented, all that's documented about Powell is her blog (and since some books etc. but I doubt there's a lot written about who she was)

Another aspect of the two women's performances that I don't think can go unmentioned is who they were playing off of. A big part of this movie and a very important part for that matter is the role of Child's and Powell's husbands. Both were supportive, caring husbands. Yes, they were both a little bit less than ironed out and turned out to be very one dimensional for the most part but its interesting to note the difference between someone who doesn't have any clue how to act as the supportive husband and one who is atleast trying to make something out of what he's given. Stanley Tucci is a pretty good character actor. In Julie & Julia, he's handed the very straightforward role of Paul Child. Occasionally some depth is added to his character by bringing up the politics of his job and of the era but he still is pretty much there only to make sure we know that what Julia is cooking tastes good. Chris Messina plays Eric Powell and well, he's just annoying. His character, that being the one that was written on the page isn't annoying, that character is just, again, one dimensional, but Messina trying and subsequently failing to make his character funny, or though provoking is just plain annoying. However, again, the Ephron does try to bring some depth to him too... he isn't perfect and after a fight with Julie over... actually I don't remember what it was over, it was kind of stupid... he leaves for a couple days before returning... no apoligies, that part of the movie was over. Back to being the same supportive husband. So, with Streep performing with Tucci and Adams with Messina, I was more impressed with Adams remaining strong in her performance that I was with Streep whom I'd never doubt.

I think Ephron did the back and forth between stories well. It wasn't ever jarring and neither story lasted too long before I wanted to get back to the other. Even more importantly, I don't think either story was that much greater than the other. The time period in which Child lived was well re-created and it contrasted modern day New York just one year removed from 9/11. I mention 9/11 for two reasons. One being that Julie worked for a post-9/11 something... I didn't really get exactly what it was, but she sat in a cubicle answering phones. Also, politics continuously made an unncessary appearance. I'm certain the McCarthy hearings were there to contrast the post 9/11 New York but I knew what time periods we were dealing in anyway. The politics just didn't seem like a necessary layer.

Overall, Julie & Julia was a good movie. Both actresses carried their prospective stories well and despite the lack of depth from supporting characters and the smaller aspects of the movie trying to be too deep I was entertained.

Crazy Heart (2009)

Directed by: Scott Cooper
Starring: Jeff Bridges

**1/2

Crazy Heart has a lot of problems, all of which result in a pretty mediocre movie, non of which include the performance of Jeff Bridges as the aging, alcoholic country music legend Bad Blake. Sometimes its frustrating when a performance is wasted on movie that isn't good enough to support it. Crazy Heart isn't quite at the point where it can't support Bridges, but it does have a problem where as good as his performance is, it becomes routine.

Aside from the performance of Bridges, one of the remaining qualities this film possesses is its consistency. The ebb and flow of this film is never altered and by maintaining that mood and feel, its very easy to stay involved, even when the movie does drag along. We open on Bad Blake, the one time star as he enters a bowling alley for a concert. This doesn't exactly suggest that Bad is still on the top of his game but he does still have fans, some of whom still find sex appeal beneath the scruffyness, the weight and the stink of MacClures on his breath. And while so many of these fans have journeyed through the ups and downs of Bad's career, our journey with him begins here and we hardly leave his side for the remainder of the film.

This would be a pleasent journey had it not been for his company. Sitting back and watching Bridges during this movie was a pleasure. He was perfect. Even as the film dragged and his performance seemed to become repetitive, it was still perfect. The repetition was accurate. His routine was alcoholism. Just because the way the film progressed didn't completely keep my interest doesn't mean Bridges did anything wrong by staying true to the material. What makes Bridges performance even more perfect is how difficult it must have been to play off of Maggie Gyllenhaal's deadpan, boring, slouched shoulder, bad kind of repetative performance. Gyllenhaal is an actress who I used to like but the more I watch the more I'm convinced she's more of a Scarlett Johansson type who was good in a movie, now tries to do the same thing everytime. What's worse is that Gyllenhaal was stuck playing what could be the most non-believable love interest in movie history. I'm not sure if it was the age difference or the very non-descript way the relationship began but from start to finish, I never bought into Bad Blake and Jean. With the two of them making up, not only the majority of the screen time, but the majority of the conflict (which most of the time was just figuring out when they'd see each other next) it made the movie very difficult to get behind.

In other scenes, Bridges was paired up with Robert Duvall and Colin Farrell in scenes that I wished there could have been more of. These scenes presented conflicts that were never followed up on. In Bad's first interview with Jean he repeatedly insists he doesn't want to talk about Tommy Sweet (Farrell), his one time partner who's now gone onto great success. Farrell plays Sweet perfectly. He's not perfect or even that great in the film as an actor but I blame that on having very little to work with. Either way, it was refreshing to see that Sweet's success hasn't gone to his head and he hasn't forgotten about who helped him get there. He tries to be helpful to Bad but at the same time he's not patronizing. Its a good blend, that really makes you want to know more about where the two of them began and when and where they split off. Duvall's character brings out the more personal side of Bad. The alcoholism he struggles with is the major concern but only by extension of the old time friend caring about Bad's well-being.

Crazy Heart is very personal story so it's almost appropriate that there aren't glaring conflicts that force Bad to go beyond all odds. That's not what the story is about. Its a journey about life's struggles, dealing with what comes one's way and then facing the consequences of how one dealt with them. Bad doesn't drink because he's sad or wants to kill himself. He drinks because one day he started small and it escalated. There doesn't have to be a reason, partly because we pick up the story when Bad's already an alcoholic, but mostly because Bridges convinces us that he is one. The best thing this movie had going for it is Bridges performance which works because its so great, but also because it really is about the life of Bad Blake. Granted, its only about a small part of his life, but that's what its about. Yes, there is a beginning, middle and an end of the movie, but we don't see the beginning of his life, or the end. All we did was join him during part of his life, something that was made real by Bridges, something that was distracting every time Gyllenhaal was on screen but something that was consistent. Its a great performance within an okay movie but I don't doubt that it did everything that it set out to do.

Shame on me...

When compiling my top 25 films of the decade, I through I remembered every movie I've seen over the past ten years worthy of making the list. I did however, somehow miss a movie that flirted with my top spot of 2004. Sideways has earned its way to the top of not only that year but of the decade but at the time, there was another movie that blew me away both in story and in what is just an incredible performance, one of the best I've ever seen for that matter.

Alejandro Amenabar's The Sea Inside starring Javier Bardem is about a quadrapalegic man who wants to be euthanized. The themes of this film are powerful, the visuals are breathtaking and Bardem is so good, him not even being nominated for an Oscar was a crime. This was my introduction to Bardem whom I've since loved in No Country for Old Men, Vicki Christina Bacelona and even in Collateral. I can't be sure where The Sea Inside would fall among the top 25 of the year but it would be in there and I'm ashamed that I left it out. So now, the best I can do, is mention it as an honorary pick.

Sin Nombre (2009)

Directed by: Cary Fukunaga
Starring: Edgar Flores

*****

Sin Nombre takes two seriously haunting subjects and combines them. They're haunting not because I don't know what's going to happen next, although that's a component of what makes this film great, but haunting because they are real. Knowing that everything I watch in this movie is happening in reality as I sit in the comfort of my living room watching a reenactment is chilling and it makes an already great movie, even better.

Edgar Flores plays Willy or as known to the members of MS-13, El Casper. His innocence and sensitivity are written right on his face but there's a quiet way he goes about playing this part and its hard not to like him despite what you know about what he's done. MS-13 is a criminal gang made up of members whom if you saw on the street, you'd not only cross to the other side, but probably run in the other direction. Their tatooed covered bodies and guns in their belts are only part of what's frightening about them. It their intentions and their lack of morality which is represented in this movie so clearly, dialogue isn't even necessary. Willy's walk through the gang's camp is all it takes to understand how dangerous these people are.

Walking through the camp with Willy is Smiley (Kristian Ferrer) who can't be a day older than 13. His exposure to such violence is unsettling, not to mention his involvement. Smiley's initiation is to shoot, point blank, a captured, helpless, defenseless, rival gang member. While the film doesn't get much more violent than this, the pit in the stomach that weighs you down only grows as the the film progresses. Unbeknownst to Willy, Smiley and any of the MS-13 members is Sayra (Paulina Gaitan) traveling atop of trains across Mexico towards the USA. Her challenge may not be as direct and violent as those Willy deals with, but they are just as real. She is completely vulnerable every second of every day and the risk she faces are dangerous, even if they're not violently so.

The introduction of the characters in this film are compelling as we're shown the world's they're forced to live in, whether by choice or by chance. I think of movies like City of God on one hand and Three Burials of Melquiades Estrada on the other. Each of these films surrounds one of the two subjects portrayed in Sin Nombre. Sin Nombre covers both better and then, if that's not a good enough movie... it combines them. When Willy and Sayra's paths cross they are both then forced to deal with the dangers of both their worlds.

Sin Nombre isn't a love story, but I'd be hard pressed to find a love story with a more heartfelt relationship than that between Willy and Sayra. They care about each other unconditionally but at the same time, the movie is not overwhelmed with cliches about protecting each other or sharing their feelings about all they've lost. Not only that but the two of them should not be together. They don't make each other's lives any easier and they and people around them would have been better off had they never met. Its only the way in which they meet that suggests they have any business being around each other.

This movie needs to be seen to appreciated. I can only say so much to plug this movie without getting as into as I'd like, which would ultimately ruin the power it possesses. I felt attached to this movie. I felt like I was traveling through worlds I knew nothing about and I was facing all the same dangers as the characters. Everything that makes this movie great is everything that makes the aspects of it so frightening. The direction, the performances, the beautiful cinematography all combine into a movie that could very well be an honorary best of the decade pick.