I confess myself disappointed.  Alright, I never had high hopes for “My Sister’s Keeper” in the first place, but nonetheless I sucked it up and went into the movie expecting a decent movie regardless.  You could say I’m disappointed because there were moments during the movie that actually showed potential and served as windows that peeked into a better movie, but alas those moments are few and far between.  For the most part, what turned me off was the fact that the screenplay seemed to value manipulating your emotions to make you cry, rather than letting the material do that naturally.

“My Sister’s Keeper”, co-written and directed by Nick Cassavetes, revolves around a suburban family whose oldest daughter Kate is in the late stages of leukemia.  Abigail Breslin plays Anna Fitzgerald, the younger daughter who was conceived as a donor child, one who would provide Kate with whatever she needed from her own body.  When the movie opens, Anna is 11 and she has lost the desire to help her sister, mainly because she wants to live her life like everybody else.  “What if I need my kidney someday?” she asks.  So, Anna goes behind her parents’ backs and approaches a famous lawyer named Campbell Alexander (Alec Baldwin).  Anna hires Campbell, despite the fact that she’s a minor, and takes her parents to court.  As you would expect, Sara and Brian Fitzgerald (Cameron Diaz and Jason Patric) are enraged at her daughter for having doubts at this late a stage.  one of the few things this film does best is portray the moral ambiguity of the situation.

Okay, let’s start with the good things.  First of all: the acting.  For the most part, everyone gives a strong performance and it’s clear they’re doing their best.  The portraits both Cameron Diaz and Jason Patric paint of two emotionally worn-down parents is at times riveting, but the rest of the time curiously monotonous, maybe even forced.  But I think the film’s best performance comes from Abigail Breslin, who is sure to be a big star when she gets older.  In fact, she seems to be the only one in the entire movie who captures the emotions of her character perfectly.  Even though Anna is convinced she’s doing what’s best for herself, she still can’t help but question her decision when confronted with moments of her sister’s weakness.  Eventually, Anna does find herself on middle ground, but I won’t go into any more details there.  The other person worth mentioning is Sofia Vassilieva, who plays luekemia-stricken Kate.  Vassilieva does get the more human aspects of her character correct, but at the same time, I just felt there was something pretty vital lacking in her performance, something I couldn’t quite put my finger on.  Then there’s Alec Baldwin, who’s also good.  Like I said, the acting was the film’s strongest asset.

Also, there was a subplot involving Kate falling in love with a similarly-diagnosed boy named Taylor that was admittedly sweet and was perhaps the film’s most engaging portion.

Now, I’m not criticizing “My Sister’s Keeper” just because it’s sentimental.  No, I’m criticizing it because it bashes us over the head with that sentimentality to the point where we feel like we’re going to get a migraine.  Director Nick Cassavetes seems to pride himself on making his audiences cry; his last two films were “The Notebook” and “John Q.”  I still haven’t seen “The Notebook”, but “John Q.” was definitely a better movie than this because it found a way to balance the storytelling and sentimentality.  In “My Sister’s Keeper”, the two apects are pretty uneven, and it’s very noticeable.  Add on to that the fact that most of the first half of the movie is composed mostly of hammy bits of narration from the different characters describing their position in this whole affair, and you see what I mean by this film overdoing it.  These narrative bits do become annoying pretty fast and they also grind the flow of the story to a halt every time one of them comes up.  I do admire the writers trying to put us in the heads of each character to better understand their emotions, but for me, it just didn’t work.

Like I said before, “My Sister’s Keeper” did actually have the potential to be good, but the moment it chose to second-chair its storytelling, it began to steadily lose my interest.  The best I can do is commend it for its acting and a decent subplot.  But the rest of it, though…either you’ll be swept up in the tidal wave of emotion or you’ll just ride over that wave.

Rating: ★★☆☆☆ 

Not to worry, all my fellow Potter phobes, the theatrical release for the long-awaited “Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince” still remains July 15th, but those planning on experiencing the sixth installment in IMAX 3-D will have to wait two extra weeks to do so.  This time, if you’re looking for someone to blame, take it out on Michael Bay and those darn Transformers.

This two week delay is the result of IMAX Corp. previously agreeing to let Paramount have an entire month where they can show the big-budget “Transformers 2: Revenge of the Fallen” on IMAX screens.  Since this agreement was made back when “Half-Blood Prince” was still scheduled to hit the market in November 2008, and due to the fact that that month-long window overlaps into Harry’s new July 15th release, Warner Brothers graciously acquiesced by moving Harry’s 4th IMAX debut to the 29th.

However, if you live in either New York or Los Angeles, you’re in luck, because Harry’s sixth big-screen adventure will still premiere on two IMAX screens in those cities on July 15th.  Everyone else…well, you get the point by now.

At least WB didn’t mess around with the theatrical release again.  But personally, I think Harry Potter trumps Optimus Prime any day of the week, and that view seems to be solidified by the fact that “Prince” contains 12 minutes of 3-D awesomeness.  Awesomeness only available through the IMAX screenings.  Even though “TF 2″ was partially filmed with IMAX cameras, they still weren’t 3-D cameras, were they?

So while Harry Potter may return to work is magic in theatres on July 15th, he won’t be able to cast his spell over IMAX screens until two weeks later.  Hey, at least it’s not another 8-month delay.

Hey, everyone.  After a long freshman year at college, I’m back full-time to review summer movies.  Let’s start with X-Men Origins: Wolverine.

Many people’s hatred for this fourth film set in the X-Men universe has been made abundantly clear by now.  However, I for one found this summer kick-off which focuses primarily on Wolverine to be an entertaining ride.  Basically, if you’re more of a movie buff than a comic one and couldn’t care less about how characters like Deadpool are portrayed, for example, or if you just enjoy Hugh Jackman’s portrayal of the tough-as-nails antihero with indestructible talons of steel, you should like this movie.

It tells the story of James Howlett, a.k.a Wolverine, who grew up confused and unsure of himself.  You can’t blame him either, since sharp bones grow out of the skin between his knuckles whenever he becomes angry.  One fateful night, James’ father dies and this event sends him off into the world alongside his half-brother Victor (played by Liev Schrieber in his later years).  Over the course of many years and many wars, James and Victor develop a close bond; the pretty nifty opening credits track their movements through the Civil War, WWII, the Vietnam War and so on and so forth.  Curiously, James and Victor stop aging once they look like Hugh Jackman and Liev Schrieber, but we’re not supposed to question things like that in a movie like this.

It’s not until after all these endless wars when James and Victor are approached by mysterious military man William Stryker (Danny Huston), who wants them to join a top-secret program that brings together various mutants.  Their task: to search the globe for a certain meteorite Stryker wants to get his hands on.  But the violence this mission entails eventually unnerves James, who believes innocents should be given a second chance.  As you can expect, he leaves the team.  But six years later, after James, or let’s just call him Logan now, the temperamental Victor, or Sabertooth, is hunting down the former team members for some unknown reason.  And after tragedy befalls Logan after Victor comes for him, he temporarily joins forces with Stryker once more so that he can become Wolverine and put a stop to his rogue half-brother once and for all.

It’s a given that films like Christopher Nolan’s “The Dark Knight” have re-shaped the mold for today’s comic book adaptations, and “Wolverine” recognizes this and promptly structures itself to fall perfectly within that outline.  This is perhaps my 2nd favorite of all the films in the “X-Men” franchise because for the first time, it deals with what makes a hero like Wolverine tick.  The script delves into his personal life before he became the amnesiac wandering the snow-covered streets in some distant place he was when we first met him in Bryan Singer’s “X-Men”.  Sure, there are some inconsistencies in the timeline leading up to that film, but not once did I let that detract from my entertainment.  The same thing goes for a brief 2-second shot where there’s a plasma TV screen in the background when the story is set sometime in the 80′s.  What I did care about, and what took center stage thanks to director Gavin Hood, was Wolverine’s inner turmoil and how it shaped him into the person we know from the “X-Men” trilogy.  Oh, and of course the entertaining action as well.

As expected, Hugh Jackman is at his snarling best as the mutant with claws of destruction.  If there’s a type of character Jackman is adept at playing, it’s the badass loner of an action hero who, in his words, comes for blood with “no law or code of conduct”.  Whenever he goes into his destructive mode, it’s relatively easy for us to buy it.  But I think I should also discuss the supporting actors, who are relatively good as well.  Liev Schreiber makes for one teeth-gnashingly despicable bad guy.  His power is extending those yellow nails of his into lethal weapons that would make anyone wanting to give him a manicure instantly shut up.  But if those nails weren’t enough to help sell him to you as the villain, he’s always clad in a black ovetrcoat that screams “nefarious”.  Danny Huston is also pretty decent as Stryker, who’s the real bad guy and is secretly developing a weapon that fans of the “X-Men” universe will no doubt recognize.  The rest of the cast is delegated to much smaller roles, each of which probably totals up to under 30 minutes of screentime.  but the ones worth mentioning are Taylor Kitsch as the card-wielding Gambit and Ryan Reynolds as Deapool.  Reynolds’ role is so small, in fact, that it would seem fair to say that if you blink, you may miss it.

The director, Gavin Hood, is treading unfamiliar waters here.  Until now, he has helmed more character driven pieces such as “Rendition”, but he surprisingly pulls off the big action sequences quite well.  Of course, this may partly be attributed to one of the film’s executive producers, Richard Donner, who it is said lended a helping hand to the visualization of these huge set pieces.  If you like big explosions and some neat hand-to-hand mutant combats, you shouldn’t be disappointed by the action here.  But nevertheless, Hood’s ability to capture human emotion remains intact.  “X-Men Origins: Wolverine” clearly isn’t in the same league as films like “The Dark Knight” or “Spider-Man 2″, but the ruminations it does make about the thin line between heroism and cold-blooded murder  do carry some weight.

At the end of the day, “X-Men Origins: Wolverine” does its job.  It entertains, first and foremost, but it also paints an interesting portrait of a tortured antihero who just wants some piece and quiet.  And if that means cutting down a few bad guys and decimating a few buildings in the process, then so be it.

Rating: ★★★☆☆ 

I must admit that I haven’t seen many of Quentin Tarantino’s films, but his latest entitled Inglorious Basterds seems to have just claimed a spot on my “To See” list in 2009.  From the looks of the film’s first trailer below, Inglorious Basterds will undoubtedly appeal to the legions of Tarantino fans, sporting unique dialogue and hard-hitting violence.

During World War II a group of Jewish-American soldiers known as “The Basterds” are chosen specifically to spread fear throughout the Third Reich by scalping and brutally killing Nazis. The Basterds soon cross paths with a French-Jewish teenage girl who runs a movie theater in Paris which is targeted by the soldiers.

You can check out this new trailer after the jump:

Watch the trailer in High Definition on Yahoo. Inglourious Basterds hits theaters on August 21st 2009.

So?  Interested or just indifferent?  Tell us your thoughts!

It’s no mystery that many found 2008 to be a relatively lackluster year, with the majority of the films released receiving mediocre reviews at best.  So, whenever a really good or truly great movie came along, it was a real delight.  Such movies included titles like Iron Man and of course, The Dark Knight.  But most of the best from 2008 weren’t all mainstream blockbusters; they included small films, under-appreciated ones and some Oscar bait.

What follows is my personal, and this time I emphasize PERSONAL, list of the year’s ten best films.  Yet again, if any of you have quibbles with my choices, I’m more than willing to back myself up.

Australia

10. Australia - Perhaps the most under appreciated movie of the year, Baz Luhrmann’s near three hour epic really surprised me in terms of how much I enjoyed it.  “Australia” sports terrific scenery, an adventurous spirit, and a scope that is undeniably magnificent.  Hugh Jackman and Nicole Kidman are the two leads, starring in the story of two people brought together on an adventure across the landscape of Australia to herd cattle and outsmart greedy land developers and other shady figures.  Amidst all this, the two fall in love and stay that way, even when World War II threatens to tear them apart.  “Australia” essentially combines three separate genres into one film; it’s a romance, a western and a war story all put together very well.  Perhaps my favorite portion of “Australia”  was the war sequence, i.e. the last part.  This is where the film draws the majority of its emotion and at the same time, it’s pretty thrilling.  On top of that, the film’s cinematography is gorgeous.  I’m disappointed it didn’t get a nomination in that category, because the film was simply a wonder to look at on many occasions.  I’m sad to know that more people weren’t willing to take a chance on it, but the film hits DVD on March 3rd, so many of you will get your chance then.

Seven Pounds

9. Seven Pounds - I find it disappointing that not many people were willing to take a chance on the latest Will Smith vehicle Seven Pounds, which is more meditative than most of the star’s previous movies.   But, I could understand most audiences’ hesitation primarily because the trailers and commercials for Seven Pounds refuse to reveal too much about the plot and I’ll try to do the same here.  Smith plays an IRS agent on a mission to drastically alter the lives of seven complete strangers.  He does so by tracking them down and questioning them in order to determine whether or not they are worthy of what he plans on giving them.  The mere fact that very little is told about the story right away shrouds the film in a blanket of enticing mystery that compels us to pay attention and ultimately awards our interest with the payoff we’ve patiently been waiting for.  Will Smith turns in a performance that is muted, enigmatic and emotionally scarred; Ben Thomas is a man still reeling from a personal tragedy in his life, and he finds himself falling irrevocably and hesitantly in love with Emily Posa (Rosario Dawson), one of the seven people he has devoted himself to helping.  Dawson gives a very fine performance, bringing alive both a sadness that compares with Ben’s emotional detachment and also a bright loveliness that contrasts with it at the same time.  Thankfully, Seven Pounds never manipulates our emotions like director Gabrielle Muccino’s previous film The Pursuit of Happyness did.  Instead, whenever the movie hits its emotional points, it feels natural and not like the product of the film beating us over the head with endless manipulations of the characters’ situations.  When the film moves us emotionally, it’s because it has earned the right to.

Body of Lies

8. Body of Lies – People are getting tired of the war on terror, but apparently someone hasn’t told that to Hollywood.  I do admit that I’m growing tired of it functioning as the basis for some of today’s dramas or thrillers, but in the case of Body of Lies, I certainly had no objection to it.  Easily the best spy-related movie since The Bourne Ultimatum, the real strength of director Ridley Scott’s “Body of Lies” is how honest it is.  The film excellently portrays the world of CIA operatives and the dealings of the business and never glamorizes the brutal reality of these situations.  This really did feel like a real-world thriller, one where the heroes never drive cars through buildings or crash them at high-speed and don’t wind up with a single bruise.  Continuing his string of really strong performances, Leonardo DiCaprio stars as Roger Ferris, a CIA agent stationed in the Middle East and tasked with the assignment of gaining useful information which could be used against an elusive terrorist known as Al-Saleem.  Russell Crowe also stars as Ed Hoffman, Ferris’s handler who’s back in Washington giving orders in an impassive drawl and watches from the sidelines as Ferris handles the hard part.  Body of Lies is adapted from a novel of the same name by David Ignatius, which I read before seeing the film and I was grateful to see that most of the source material remained intact.  But what really helps sell this movie is DiCaprio, who once again is a powerful force whenever he’s on-screen.  Mark Strong is also great as Hani Salaam, a contact in the Middle East who possesses considerable leeway over the politics in the region.  Body of Lies is that Hollywood thriller that comes along every once in a while that doesn’t feel like your usual Hollywood thriller; it’s more about the inner politics and complications that arise in such a mission and how they affect the characters rather than the explosions and gunfights.  Not to mention it has an interesting story to back it up.

Wall-E

7. WALL-E – When it comes to the genre of animated films, nobody does it better than Pixar.  If their worst day manufactures the 2 1/2 -star “Cars”, then on their best day, they produce such 4-star masterpieces like “Ratatouille” and last year’s “WALL-E”.  The studio’s first venture into sci-fi surprised and delighted me, as well as millions of other people, and it marked a new milestone for animated films.  “WALL-E” takes place many years in the future and centers around a small robot of the same name whose sole function in life is to clean up the massive piles of garbage left behind by the human race so that one day we may return to Earth.  But over the years, WALL-E has developed a heart and yearns to know what lies beyond the impenetrable cloud of smog encasing the planet.  One day, he gets the opportunity when another robot, this one female, arrives on Earth with a mission and befriends WALL-E in the process.  And before they know it, both robots are whisked away on an adventure into space, where the human race has been relocated.  Now, the views on the ecosystem that are subtly expressed through the setup of the plot personally didn’t bother me, because mainly I refuse to bring politics into the theater and enjoy a film based on its own merits.  That being said, “WALL-E” is a touching romance wrapped in an astounding adventure, one that’s just as exciting for all ages.  WALL-E himself is without a doubt one of Pixar’s most lovable characters and because of that, it’s very easy for us to root for him.  As a matter of fact, I don’t think I’ve cared this much for an animated character since the first “Shrek” back in 2001.  One of the reasons “WALL-E” is one of the best movies of 2008 is because it just makes you feel great after you watch it.  This is definitely the feel-good movie of the year, and the mere fact that I’m using that phrase surprises me because I rarely try to use it.  However, there’s no denying how good I felt after seeing “WALL-E” for the first time I saw it.

Revolutionary Road

6. Revolutionary Road - It’s simply ridiculous how the Academy overlooked this tremendous film when handing out nominations, because not only do its two leads deliver unbelievably great performances, the film itself is also a powerhouse of emotion that’s pretty unforgettable.  This movie especially demonstrates how Leonardo DiCaprio is unequivocally the best actor of his generation.  His performance here carries a sadness, frustration and desperation that only heightens the power of the performance.  How he did NOT get a Best Actor nomination is beyond my realm of logic because this may well be the best performance of his career.  “Revolutionary Road” can be considered an Actor’s movie, and in that sense, it’s extraordinary.  Watch the big fight that he and Kate Winslet have towards the end of the film and you’ll see what I mean.  DiCaprio and Winslet play Frank and April Wheeler, a married couple living life in the suburbs during the 50′s who are going through really rough times.  They discover that the happiness that most other couples share is really an illusion that couples like them hide behind in order to escape the grim truth.  Director Sam Mendes captures this feel of suburban life impeccably, with the themes that accompany this lifestyle playing an important role in the story and where it goes.  There is not one false moment in this entire film; it really does play out like real life.  “Revolutionary Road” can get pretty tough to watch at times due to the realism of what we’re seeing and the tension-filled arguments, especially the ending and what it involves.  Many will find this ending disturbing, but in retrospect, it’s an ending that does make sense.  “Revolutionary Road” is a reminder of just how good DiCaprio and Winslet are together; here’s hoping it doesn’t take 11 years for them to team up again.

Slumdog Millionaire

5. Slumdog Millionaire – Every year, there seems to be an Indie darkhorse that seemingly materializes out of thin air towards the end of the year and takes everyone by surprise as well as sweeping through multiple awards programs.  In 2006, it was “Little Miss Sunshine,” 2007 had “Juno” and in 2008, we got “Slumdog Millionaire”.  Many have claimed this to be the Feel-Good Movie of the year, but I don’t really see why.  This is certainly a great film and the ending is especially uplifting, but the majority of “Slumdog Millionaire” involves material that certainly warrants its R rating.  But that’s not to say that all the praise in general isn’t warranted, because it is.  No other movie in the past few years has gotten me engrossed in everything quite like “Slumdog Millionaire”; this underdog story about a teenager from the slums of Mumbai who goes on the Indian version of “Who Wants To Be A Millionaire” is made all the more gripping by Danny Boyle’s fantastic direction and the exceedingly well-written screenplay by Simon Beaufoy which sequences the events of the story very well.  The reason you care about the outcome of this story is because you’re able to identify with Jamal (Dev Patel), an extremely likable “slumdog” from Mumbai who draws the answer to each question from his past, which in turn causes many to question this, including the police.  As far as underdog stories go, they don’t get much better than this.  Plus, the ending is much more gripping than most climaxes in thrillers these days, again thanks in part to Boyle, whose sense of editing heightens the suspense.  So, would I give the Best Picture award to “Slumdog Millionaire”?  No, because I believe there to be a more deserving candidate in the race this year, but more on that later.  Bottom line, “Slumdog Millionaire” is a must-see film.

Frost Nixon

4. Frost/Nixon – Director Ron Howard has made some really great films; “Apollo 13″, “A Beautiful Mind” and “Cinderella Man” to name a few.  His latest, “Frost/Nixon” is a fine addition to his list and is a movie that proves just how gripping a conversation can be.  “Frost/Nixon” centers around the series of interviews that took place between disgraced former President Richard Nixon (Frank Langella in an Oscar-nominated role) and British T.V. ham David Frost (Michael Sheen).  Here’s the setup: after the Watergate Scandal in the early 70′s, Richard Nixon resigns as President and subsequently suffers a medical emergency which in turn grants him a pardon, therefore leaving the American citizens without answers to the questions surrounding the Scandal.  Much later, British talk-show host gets the idea to interview Nixon, figuring that it’d be a really great idea to pull in ratings.  At first, everyone’s fears of Frost not being a “worthy opponent” seem to be confirmed, but by the final interview, Frost is able to prove that even someone like him can get under the skin of a former President.  “Frost/Nixon” is ripe with excellent performances by not only its two main leads, but also the supporting actors which include Kevin Bacon, Sam Rockwell and Oliver Platt.  Throughout the film, Howard injects clips from single “interviews” with the characters about what happened behind the scenes of the Frost-Nixon interviews; it’s an interesting technique and it works especially well here.  And in addition, you can’t help but be mesmerized by Frank Langella, whose work here is simply outstanding.  Though I think Michael Sheen hasn’t been given enough credit; he’s definitely able to hold his own against Langella.  Chalk another one up for Ron Howard.  Hard to believe these movies came from the man formerly known as Opie.

In Bruges

3. In Bruges – If a movie released all the way back in February can still be as strong and enjoyable in quality as it was the first time around, then you know it has to be something special.  “In Bruges”, (pronouced ‘broozh’)the biggest and best surprise of 2008, is a character piece before it’s a thriller, one with very interesting and very round characters as well as a resonant commentary on the principles one must abide by in their line of work, even when those principles involve dark consequences.  The film also paints a more rounded portrait of the hitman, showing that hitmen can be conflicted and deeply hurt whenever a hit goes wrong; despite their profession, hitmen are still human beings.  “In Bruges” is a compelling combination of thriller, dark comedy and character study featuring comedic dialogue so sharp and smart, you’d think the actors were delivering their lines while performing a magic trick; you’re riveted by what’s transpiring and can’t wait to see what happens next.  Colin Farrell and Brendan Gleeson star as Ray and Ken, two hitmen sent to the town of Bruges in Belgium by their employer Harry (Ralph Fiennes) after a hit goes tragically wrong.  Farrell gives the performance of his career as Ray, a man wallowing in grief and is forced to confront those painful feelings while staying in Bruges.  Add on top of that Harry himself eventually swinging by to take care of “loose ends”, and you’ve got a satisfyingly simple story that drives a great film.  “In Bruges” was written and directed by Martin McDonagh, and he brings humanity to the script.  “In Bruges” is the little movie from 2008 that could.  Had it not been for the next two movies on my list, “In Bruges” would have been my favorite film of the year.

The Dark Knight

2. The Dark Knight – I know what all you fanboys are thinking: how could “The Dark Knight” NOT be number one on this list?  Well, that’s because it was beaten out by a little movie called “The Curious Case of Benjamin Button”.  But more on that soon.  Now…where do we begin?  Well, director Christopher Nolan did an impeccable job of capturing the spirit of Batman yet again amidst an epic crime story that was more than worthy of a Best Picture nomination.  Academy, you sure missed the boat this time.  “The Dark Knight” is yet another milestone, as it marks the new standard that’s been set for the Superhero genre.  Writer/director Nolan has crafted what can be called a masterpiece in its own way; he not only settles for telling a straight-up superhero story, as he and co-writer/brother Jonathan Nolan injects themes of righteousness, morality, succumbing to inner demons and being pushed to the limit that propel everything to a whole different level that a superhero film has never been on before.  Of course, I can’t talk about this film without mentioning the late, great Heath Ledger for his haunting and menacing turn as the villainous Joker.  Ledger is sure to win a posthumous Oscar for his performance here, and it’s well-deserved; he creates a Joker so cruel and sadistic, he makes Jack Nicholson look like Ceasar Romero.  But let’s not discredit another strong supporting performance, this one more subtle and restrained: Aaron Eckhart as Harvey Dent/Two-Face.  This ain’t the Tommy Lee Jones version, either.  Keeping in line with Ledger, Eckhart brings a dark realism to the film when the transformation is made, and we’re able to sympathize with Dent and feel his pain as Two-Face.  Plus, the film has incredibly entertaining and engrossing action sequences to boot; the armored car chase is sure to be remembered as one of the most memorable action sequences in years.  If Christopher Nolan does decide to make a third film, I trust him enough to make sure that it’ll be as great as it can be.  Superhero movies just don’t get much better than this.

Benjamin Button

1. The Curious Case of Benjamin Button – Here it is: the crowning achievement of 2008.  “The Curious Case of Benjamin Button” is a mesmerizing movie; filled with emotion, wonder and a moving sadness.  The film reminded me of old-fashioned moviemaking, where the characters and the journeys they take being the main focus.  No other movie this year, not even “The Dark Knight”, had me as invested as this one.  Director David Fincher creates a world you want to get lost in; it’s so vividly realized and flawlessly handled, you’d think the movie was a documentary.  The movie is adapted from a short story authored by F. Scott Fitzgerald which was apparently around 25 pages in length and the fact that the film is 165 minutes long says something about how devoted to the project Fincher and the rest of the crew were throughout production.  And that right there is another reason why “The Curious Case of Benjamin Button” succeeds so well: because just by watching it, you can tell that it was a passion project.  And that passion translates into some very fine filmmaking.  Brad Pitt’s performance is marvelous, with his Oscar nomination being both inevitable and very well-deserved.  In addition, Cate Blanchett continues her string of fantastic performances here as Daisy, Benjamin’s lifelong friend and love interest.  We all know how this story has to end, but that doesn’t stop us from becoming emotionally invested in their love story and rooting for them.  But another thing Fincher seems to be really experienced at is editing.  There’s one sequence in particular that involves Daisy in the 2nd hour that is brilliantly pieced together and shows just how deserving of the Best Director Oscar David Fincher really is.  “The Curious Case of Benjamin Button” has amassed 13 nominations in all, and I hope it wins most, if not all of them.

Do let us know what you thought of the list!!

Critic's Choose Heath as their Choice

Last night, the 14th Annual Critics’ Choice Awards aired on VH1, and it was met with tumultuous applause.  Well, at least one particular award was and I’ll give you three guesses which, but you’re only going to need one.

Of course, I’m talking about the late Heath Ledger receiving a standing ovation after the actor won the Critics’ Choice for Best Supporting Actor for his haunting and menacing work as The Joker.  Director Christopher Nolan accepted on Ledger’s behalf, once again reiterating how pleased he was to have worked with Heath and also how happy he was to bring the actor’s career-defining role to audiences and for it to receive such recognition.

But that wasn’t the first time Nolan took the stage last night, as “The Dark Knight” also took home the award for Best Action Film.  This may mark the beginning of a swift Awards journey for the box office behemoth, as it’s already been nominated by the WGA and DGA for more awards as well as another nomination for Heath at the Golden Globes; nods for Oscars seem inevitable now.

Critics also chose winners just as worthy in the remaining categories, including Sean Penn as Best Actor, Danny Boyle as Best Director and Kate Winslet as Best Supporting Actress.  Below is a complete list of the winners:

Best Picture: Slumdog Millionaire

Best Actor: Sean Penn, Milk

Best Actress was a TIE! : Meryl Streep, Doubt and Anne Hathaway, Rachel Getting Married

Best Supporting Actor: Heath Ledger, The Dark Knight

Best Supporting Actress: Kate Winslet, The Reader

Best Acting Ensemble: Milk

Best Director: Danny Boyle, Slumdog Millionaire

Best Writer: Simon Beaufoy, Slumdog Millionaire

Best Animated Feature: WALL-E

Best Young Actor/Actress (under 21): Dev Patel, Slumdog Millionaire

Best Action Movie: The Dark Knight

Best Comedy: Tropic Thunder

Best Picture Made For Television: John Adams

Best Foreign Language Film: Waltz With Bashir

Best Documentary Feature: Man On Wire

Best Song: The Wrestler by Bruce Springsteen for The Wrestler

Best Composer: A.R. Rahman, Slumdog Millionaire

So, do you agree or disagree with the critics?  Let us know!

If you pay close enough attention, you’ll notice that nearly every other movie released these days seems to be based on a true story. And after a while you have to wonder if Hollywood will ever run out of true stories to turn into movies. Until then we’ll have to make do with what we get.

The latest true story to be turned into a film, Valkyrie, is one of the more compelling; it is very well-acted and directed, though it falls just short of being first-rate. Bryan Singer, the creative talent behind the first two X-Men films and some low-key movies such as The Usual Suspects, directs this period thriller about a plot to assassinate Hitler, and he knows how to keep the suspense and tension high. Because in the case of movies like Valkyrie, it’s not about where the story is going, but about how it gets to its ending. Anyone who has covered this time period in any sort of history class should know the outcome of this story, so the trick is to keep the audience invested in the build-up to the climax, and Singer pulls it off pretty well.

Valkyrie takes place at the height of WWII and follows Colonel Claus von Stauffenberg (Tom Cruise), a German officer who’s also an outspoken advocate of the Germany that existed before Hitler took power. After a surprise attack on his base of operations in South Africa, Stauffenberg loses one eye, his right hand and three of his the fingers on his left. After recovering, he is approached by General Friedrich Olbricht (Bill Nighy), a man of power who’s part of a clandestine collection of German officers who have been trying for the longest time to kill Adolf Hitler without success. After one particular attempt implicates a few key members, Olbricht tells Stauffenberg about the group’s need to reorganize with people they can be sure will be able to successfully pull off the job. Stauffenberg has reached the limit of his patience with the way the German government is being run and agrees to join the conspiracy. The operation is codenamed “Valkyrie”, for the emergency plan that was meant to be used in case of a revolt against the Nazi government. This initiative is rewritten by Stauffenberg so that it would allow them to seize control over the course of three hours once Hitler was killed. But for various reasons, the plot failed after being implemented on July 20, 1944.

Alright, let me start with Tom Cruise. While I don’t agree with everything he does in his personal life, I still think he’s a very good actor. He gives one of his best performances in years as Stauffenberg; he’s good at that really distinct air of self-confidence mixed with mystique. His character is one who is able to command attention and respect whenever he engages in conversation with another individual, and with an almost natural elegance. The rest of the cast is also strong, a “who’s who” of great British actors. There’s Kenneth Branagh, Bill Nighy, Terence Stamp, Tom Wilkinson and Tom Hollander, all in supporting roles that truly highlight each of their strengths. Each person is given ample amount of screen time both to show off their acting chops and to create good characters. I guess Valkyrie just goes to show that you can never go wrong with such a strong supporting cast of British actors. That is, if the movie’s good – and this one is.

Bryan Singer certainly knows how to create an effective atmosphere in all of his movies, and here he’s created a true thriller-like atmosphere. There’s little next to no music in the more tension-filled sequences, such as when Stauffenberg is in the process of planting a bomb in the bunker where Hitler is hiding out, and it makes for some really interesting stuff. And the last half hour or so, which shows the characters putting Operation Valkyrie into action, is very well-put together and makes you feel as if you’re actually watching these events as they unfolded. If the film has any shortcomings, it’s that after the film establishes what the story will be and who the main characters are, the pace seems to slow down a lot. It’s strange, because usually the build-up to the “Big Moment” is very exciting and steadily paced in films like these, but here it feels as if the writers kind of lost interest in this portion of the script and didn’t really put as much effort into it as they did the rest. However, the film picks back up very well once Valkyrie is initiated and we quickly get back to all the good stuff.

While Valkyrie may not be perfect, it’s still a very solid period thriller rich in strong performances and real tension. Some people may grow a bit restless during the middle portion, but they will be rewarded with a very gripping third act. I probably wouldn’t go so far as to label this a potential Oscar contender, but Valkyrie is nonetheless a pretty fascinating film for anyone unfamiliar with what became known as the July 20^th Plot.

Rating: ★★★½☆ 

Check out Redpatriot’s review of Valkyrie here.

]]> http://www.atomicpopcorn.net/michaels-valkyrie-movie-review/feed/ 2 http://www.atomicpopcorn.net/four-christmases-movie-review/ http://www.atomicpopcorn.net/four-christmases-movie-review/#comments Thu, 25 Dec 2008 10:31:19 +0000 Michael http://www.atomicpopcorn.net/?p=1864

Dear Santa,

Why is it that no one seems to know how to make a good Christmas movie anymore? The last holiday film that I truly loved was “Love Actually”, which was released back in 2003. Since then, there have been a few that I liked (“The Family Stone” and “Fred Claus”), but being who you are, I think you have the right to protest this slew of lame and awful holiday-themed comedies or at the very least leave giant lumps of coal in the stockings of all these producers. It’s movies like “Four Christmases” that demonstrate how little Hollywood knows about making Christmas movies.

Instead of incorporating good and witty humor into their storylines, much like what I know has to be your personal favorite, “The Santa Clause”, producers these days seem to think audiences won’t come to see Christmas movies unless they’re filled with dumb slapstick humor (not the funny kind like in “Home Alone”) and bathroom humor. “Four Christmases” is filled with that stuff; it has a baby vomiting on a person on more than one occasion, a little girl inadvertently sticking a pregnancy test in her mouth after it’s been used and a man being pummeled by his UFC-trained “cage” wrestling brothers. By now Santa, you’re probably rubbing your forehead in frustration, and I share the sentiment. Obviously, you know that Christmas is better than a bad joke that falls flat on its face in almost every scene; with movies like “Four Christmases”, the good name of Christmas is getting dragged through the melted snow, and I think you should finally take action.

The movie stars Vince Vaughn (you know, that guy you almost had sued last year for using your brother’s name in a movie without your permission) and Reese Witherspoon. Their characters’ names are Brad and Kate, and they are an unmarried couple who are very content that way. Every year at Christmas, they create some elaborate, diabolical minefield of lies to get them out of actually spending time with their families so that they can take vacations to various tropical locations. If you actually delivered coal to adults, this pair would have enough to run their fireplace all winter. Each of Brad and Kate’s parents is divorced, so when their holiday trip to Fiji gets canceled due to major fog, they have no choice but to make the rounds to all four parental figures, hence the title “Four Christmases”. And Santa, if you’re wondering why Brad and Kate couldn’t just invite everyone over to their house, the answer is simply because then there wouldn’t be setups for different fun gags at each residence.

The parents are portrayed by Robert Duvall, Mary Steenburgen, Sissy Spacek and Jon Voight, visited in that order. What follows is a series of failed gags involving Vince Vaughn getting beat up and thrown around, and Reese Witherspoon being spit up on by babies and being attacked by children in a Moonbounce. Man, do I wish you could have come in and worked on this script!

So, I put together a short list for you of suggestions for fixing this and future potential Hollywood Christmas scripts:

1. Jokes that are actually funny. The jokes in this movie especially stink worse than expired eggnog, in particular the ones involving breast-feeding and baby vomit. This brings me to the next suggestion.

2. No babies vomiting, projectile vomiting, peeing on people or excreting any other bodily fluid while a character is within the target area. Putting stuff like that into a movie clearly shows how desperate you’re becoming, and you don’t want that to taint your image.

3. And finally, if you’re gonna have such refined actors in the roles of parents, make sure you actually give them something to do besides reading off perfunctory dialogue specifically written to cut down the actors playing their children. Otherwise, it’s all too clear that they’re in the movie just to dupe their own longtime fans into being robbed of their time and money.

I hope these are helpful suggestions and that I have successfully put you on alert for future bad Christmas movies. Oh, and this year, you can skip the houses of the four, count ‘em, four, writers who penned this screenplay.

I’m making my list of the year’s worst movies and checking it twice to make sure this movie is on it. Just one more question: are there any plans to progress to something worse than coal in stockings?

Rating: 1 star