Finally: A best of 2009 list!

Recently I dubbed myself a "film sharpshooter," which means I choose the movies I pay for wisely*, which means the list of 2009 releases The Film Official has seen isn't very long, which means the "official" in this title isn't so official, is it? (Cheap joke alert) Official? Heck, I could probably officiate in the NBA with a record like this.

*Ed. note: The Hours and A Knight's Tale are exceptions.

But whatever. Here's a descending look at all the 2009 movies who have been graced by the presence of me*:

*Note 2: These rankings are subject to change, as is my mind, so positions might flip as time passes. As some guy once said, "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds" ... and although I'm not really sure what a hobgoblin is, it sounds pretty scary -- like something that might be trying to drag me to the fire-and-brimstone underworld or something. I want nothing to do with that. OK, end of digression. Here are those long-anticipated rankings:

8. Watchmen (full review): The only true dud on this list. Lots of cool images, one intriguing character ... but when your movie is 12 hours long, shouldn't it at least look good and have, like, at least one intriguing character?

7. The Brothers Bloom (full review): A disappointment because of its imagery, its cast and high expectations after writer-director Rian Johnson auteured the fantastic Brick. This one just unravels, which is a shame.

6. Star Trek (um, cough, "full" review): You know those 5-Hour Energy commercials where they bash the sugary energy drinks -- you know, fun now, but doesn't last? Star Trek is one of those sugary energy drinks.

5. Observe and Report (full review): Has so much going for it that its occasional forays into ridiculous comedy seem forced. Coulda been.

4. Sugar (full review): Speaking (earlier) of sugar, Sugar is kind of the opposite of sugar. It's more like a piece of whole wheat bread. Perfectly OK, but either 1) could be tastier, or 2) could be better for you.

3. I Love You, Man (full review): Lots of fun, lots of Rush, lots of perfectly captured male awkwardness. Not gonna win any TFO awards unless 2009 really sucks, and it's no comedy HOF-er, but it's still memorably good.

2. Up (full review): Despite its late lapse into convention, it resonates emotionally and has a great message. Looks good, too, but that's kind of a duh for Pixar at this point.

1. Drag Me To Hell (full review): The only film on the list that exceeds expectations. It starts out slow ... but that's just director/co-writer Sam Raimi tricking you into thinking you're in for ordinary horror. Fun, funny, jumpy, creative -- all-time great it ain't, but it completely nails its target.

Anything but a Drag (or: Another pukey punny blog title)

When you're a film sharpshooter like me -- that is to say, you avoid seeing movies that look especially crappy, and you're not even sure the "merely OK" types (e.g. State of Play) are worth your time/money -- quite often you'll come away disappointed, since you're aiming high almost all the time.

Now, you take that and combine it with a documented love of horror (and the insistence that horror isn't especially tough to pull off), and it's easy to leave the theater underwhelmed instead of chilled by the latest offering, be it a slasher flick or a supernatural thriller.

(And when the film in question runs up a 94% score on Rotten Tomatoes ... well, that's just recipe for a Michael Bay-like explosion in one's face.)

Which, in an incredibly long-winded way, brings us to Drag Me To Hell ...

(The Hollywood News with the pic)

... which, simply put, was exceptional. Not in a There Will Be Blood, preserve-this-film-after-the-ice-caps-melt kind of way. It's more of a best-movie-I've-seen-this-year situation.

First: Drag -- Sam Raimi's story of an insecure-yet-ambitious bank employee (Alison Lohman) who, through certain fault of her own, becomes cursed by an old gypsy woman (Lorna Raver) -- is not horror in the typical sense. It makes you jump, close your eyes and/or wince in disgust, but always winks at you.

Well, not always. Part of its brilliance is how it begins; basically, it tries to fool you into thinking it's a straightforward horror story -- with its flashback opening, then some early scenes of absurdly phony dialogue (the Lohman character is even listening to diction tapes on the way to work!).

But it's all just a setup for another of Raimi's bizarro trips, which starts in a parking garage and ends -- well, I won't tell you where it ends. I'll just say this: As the curse becomes more and more outrageous, the scares more creative and the solutions increasingly strange, the film asserts itself as something of a less-gory, bigger-budget version of Raimi's classic Evil Dead 2.

No, there's no amorous tree here ... but there is an (understandably) angry black cat, an adventurous housefly and a whole lot more fun.

Feeling conned by The Brothers Bloom

After mentioning it once or twice -- not to mention loving writer-director Rian Johnson's debut, Brick -- The Brothers Bloom was a must-watch, despite its lukewarm critical reception.

(Pic found at HitFix)

Sadly, the critics were right. What starts out as a fun, breezy and occasionally poignant story -- two grifter brothers (Mark Ruffalo and Adrien Brody) and their near-silent accomplice (Rinko Kikuchi) who attempt a multi-continent con on an eccentric heiress (Rachel Weisz) -- gradually takes on larger themes as the con gets bigger and the film gets longer. In the end, it goes pretty much where you think it'll go, it takes too long to get there, and the message is delivered with a heavy hand.

One additional complaint on con movies: The plots tend to be too big or too intricate or too both. There's nothing wrong with a simple ruse -- fewer holes can be punched, making for a film that doesn't leave you going, "Hey, wait a second ..."

One compliment on Brothers (aside from the performances, which are -- unsurprisingly -- quite good): Johnson knows how to create him some images. Lets hope he gets his hand on a script* that lets him show his knack for aesthetics within the confines of an equally great story.

*Looks like that could be Looper. Let's hope so.

Up to no great (or: Pixar is overrated)

I, like about $68.2 million worth of my peers, saw Up this weekend -- and no, that doesn't mean I aimed my eyes at the sky.

Funny thing is, although the film is set partially in a house that -- powered by balloons -- flies to South America, neither did Up. Instead, Up did what most Pixar movies do: It shot lower and hit its mark.

(Firstshowing.net with the pic)

That's not to say the film isn't good. It is. But "good" is they key word here, because what it does well -- it's about as emotionally grabbing as any film I've seen, and really leaves you wanting to hug somebody -- is offset partially by the same thing that hindered Wall-E and some of the other offerings from the unthinkable-to-question* animation studio: After unfurling another of its creative setups (this one involving a lonely widower fulfilling an unusual promise to his late wife), it devolves into formula (this one an "edge-of-your-seat" action finale that left me nowhere near falling off the theater's upholstery).

*Although, it must be noted, I did not like Ratatouille one bit.

Up's downturn isn't nearly as maddening as Wall-E's, since the former never reached the heights of the latter before treading familiar territory (although it did have me near tears earlier than any film I've seen, even my favorite little robot story). Still, it's a disheartening continuation down the "safe" path for the studio. It's like Spielberg's in charge there or something. Even the most original of concepts turn into unoriginal narratives by movie's end. It's as if they're pulling in adults, then pandering to the kiddies.

Although those box office numbers -- and the critical reception -- suggest everyone's pretty much OK with it. So I suppose it's hard to second-guess a studio that kills every time it releases something.

Still, just once, I'd love for that great creative team to go unchecked, offering something as weird and wild and wonderful as, say, The Triplets of Belleville -- in other words, a story that wows just as much as the technique does.

Star Trek quickie review

The Film Official emerges from the shadows to tackle a rare in-theaters movie. Thoughts on Star Trek ...

(Pic from ISN News)

... It's dece.

Bad, horror. Bad!

Seeing the early reviews -- early as in, only 11 of them by Thursday afternoon -- of Sam Raimi's latest, Drag Me to Hell, it's hard for a horror fan not to get a little giddy.

Because good horror is a mysterious (and elusive) fig.

(Thanks to Screen Rant for the pic)

Aside from the very, very, VERY exceptional cases -- and this is true for any genre (comedy, sci-fi, action, etc.) -- rarely does an offering reach an all-time-great level. But there's just something about a solid scare-fest -- say, Quarantine -- that's so much more satisfying than your typical entertaining actioner.

Also, and let me say this very quietly ... IT'S NOT THAT HARD TO MAKE!

Seems to me, good horror needs three elements to succeed (succeed = not suck):

1) An ominous, uncomfortable atmosphere -- a looming sense of dread that doesn't let up until the credits roll. Basically, just create likable (or at least tolerable) characters and threaten their lives somehow. Done.

2) A script that isn't riddled with horrifically stupid dialogue or nonsensical, eye-rolling plot points. We don't need Elmore Leonard exchanges and a Usual Suspects-level storyline here, just a little bit of logic and realism, even in an unreal world.

3) A lack of excess. There's nothing wrong with a little violence/gore, but sometimes it's just too much, and too mean. A great example is Hostel -- it kills in the atmosphere department and has a solid script ... but once it reaches its payoff, it's just too much.

Sure, this doesn't account for everything*. But it's a pretty simple set of rules that shouldn't be that hard to follow. No, you're not necessarily going to get huge critical success -- but hey, Anchorman only hit 64% on RottenTomatoes, and if that's not a legend in the world of genre films, nothing is. Like comedy fans, horror-philes have relatively low expectations, too.

*Let's not forget about side genres such as the cheesy, over-the-top slasher/monster flick (e.g. the old Friday the 13th series) or the action-horror hybrid (you could throw Aliens into this basket). There's also the bizarro-horror, which Raimi himself nailed in Evil Dead II.

I was going to rant on a couple of horror entries I've sampled lately (Thir13en Ghosts going on 30 Days of Night) -- but why waste time? I already did that watching them. In short, they didn't follow the rules -- brainless plots and dumb dialogue that waste a few pretty cool kills and effects.

Instead I'll just sit here hoping Drag Me to Hell doesn't fall into same traps. I don't want to scream its title as I leave the theater, thinking about another $10 and two hours wasted on bad horror.

Road to nowhere?

The long-anticipated trailer to the long-anticipated The Road finally emerged last week, with the film seeming ... promising. Cormac McCarthy's novel won the Pulitzer. Still, the movie was supposed to be released in 2008. A delay, obviously, isn't a good sign, but it's not necessarily a harbinger of doom, either.

One of the more intriguing questions when discussing The Road is "Who is John Hillcoat?" -- as in, who's this dude slated to direct dudes like Viggo Mortensen and Charlize Theron*?

*OK, she's not really a dude, unless you're referring to this monster-ous role.

And then God (On Demand) answered with The Proposition, a 2005 Australian import and one of only three films (and the most recent) in Hillcoat's directorial filmography.

This is our concern, dude, because The Proposition ain't all that great.

(Pic from DVDTalk.com)

Strangely enough, this Western wowed critics with its story of a brooding Aussie outlaw (Guy Pearce) accepting a brooding Aussie copper's (Ray Winstone) deal of turning in his vicious, brooding gang-leader brother (Danny Huston) in order to save their meek younger brother (Richard Wilson; who doesn't do a whole lot of brooding because he's busy bawling).

Like I said, there's a whole lot of staring, a whole lot of emoting, a whole lot of philosophizing (and sure, considerable violence) -- but almost none of it comes with much narrative grab; you keep wanting to care about these characters, but even the sympathetic ones' plights are overdone and thus, not all that interesting.

OK, so labeling this a Hillcoat-related concern isn't necessarily fair, as a director's early efforts don't necessarily predict a lack of potential greatness (Martin Scorsese did Boxcar Bertha, after all, which screamed "change the channel!" after about three minutes). Hillcoats feel for the visual clearly is keen. Really, most of the problems stem from musician Nick Cave's script, where the dialogue isn't all that sharp and several scenes seem forced.

So let's hope Hillcoat got a good one with The Road, and it ends up as more than Viggo, et al staring off into space for 120 minutes while emotive music plays and wind blows and flies buzz.

Should I ... ?

If there's one -- and I think there's only one -- reason to see the oh-so-INDIE! Away We Go, it's this guy:



... or maybe I'll just listen to this for the 1,567,834th time.

Peace sells, and Will Ferrell's buying

The news-gathering music website Blabbermouth.net tipped me off to an audio update from TheLiveLine.com:

Megadeth's Dave Mustaine: "I'm going to be working on the new Will Ferrell movie 'Land Of The Lost'... and going to be putting some music on that. I went and saw the movie last week and it was hilarious. I loved it. I love Will Ferrell; think he's hilarious anyways. But, yeah, we're getting ready to send some music up to these guys right now and you're listening to some in the background, and then I'll be heading up there this week to hopefully finish all this off with their guys. And man, how exciting for me."

"Land Of The Lost" is set to hit theaters on June 5. Check out a trailer below.

Here is that trailer ...



Hmmm. Megadeth's still got it, even after all these years, but is that enough to make Land watchable? I mean, Mustaine's crew once contributed a solid song to ... Last Action Hero.

Whatever Work day

Busy with the whole day-job thing, although I'm sure I'll spend a little time wondering about this film's trailer ...



Early verdict: It's not so great, but an irrational love of L.D. (not to mention a little help from Woody) can overcome anything.

Sugar

"The BEST film OF THE YEAR!"
--Me

On a recent trip to SoFla, I had the chance to catch Sugar at one of those cheap arty theaters -- the ones which, in a perfect world, would be prolific and flush with people*. This one, well, wasn't. Which is too bad, because it was well worth the $5 to see this muted film about a Dominican baseball player (Algenis Perez Soto) trying to hack it as a minor-league prospect.

*Strangely, despite a decent amount of theaters that actually show real films sometimes, the whole Palm Beach/Broward/Dade area only had one theater showing Sugar. Strange.


(Hollywood.com with the pic)

Two things about Sugar -- 1) In a (very) small sample, it really is the best film I've seen in 2009 ... but here's hoping it gets passed. A lot. Because 2) It's little more than a nice movie, a well-made, realistic depiction of a story that, honestly, isn't earth-shatteringly compelling.

It follows the emotional journey, not so much the baseball one (although the two certainly are interlocked), of Miguel "Azucar" (Sugar) Santos, born into Dominican squalor but also born with an electric* right arm. He spends time at a local baseball academy, heads to Phoenix for spring training, then earns a spot in his club's (the fictional Kansas City Knights) system, on a Single-A team in ... rural Iowa. Obviously, a culture clash ensues -- Azucar barely speaks English -- although the clash is not of the cliched variety. Same thing when an injury temporarily sidelines our hero -- it's not as if his career is over, as would be the case in a formula-driven piece.

*Not literally. Now THAT would be -- wait, I'm gonna stop here before we really do get another one of those stupid comic book/superhero movies: The Electric Arm -- "Shockingly good!"

Really, this film sidesteps most cliches (although it does feature a cameo from everyone's favorite baseball bit player, the Performance Enhancing Drug). It's made very quietly, not bludgeoning us with backstory or unnecessary expository dialogue. Kudos to filmmakers Anna Boden and Ryan Fleck for being hugely realistic here.

And yet ...

That realism almost gets Sugar in trouble. Because as the story unfolds (I could explain, but that would be spoiler-tastic), some of the events become decreasingly interesting. Non-fantasies/fairy tales/comedies should be realistic, but some things can be omitted. Sugar just doesn't seem to leave out much as it goes for the true-to-life thing. Which makes it drag a bit, dampening the end result.

Would I rather have this than some piece of formula fluff? Especially from a movie about sports? Absolutely. Still, for a film to reach true greatness, there must be more. Sugar the movie is a little -- not totally, but somewhat -- like sugar the substance: Empty.

Opening minutes

A pair of intriguing 2009 releases have made available their opening minutes. Personally, I would rather have seen their closing minutes, so I'd know what happens and save myself the $10.

Courtesy of Awards Daily, Francis Ford Coppola's small, black-and-white Tetro ...



... which has a strange Touch of Evil-ish quality to it, but with quiet. Bonus points for the slanty credits.

And, via TrailerAddict, Rian Johnson's The Brothers Bloom (which I've mentioned before) ...



... which seems clever and creative and all -- but I hate rhyming. Hate it. Hateithateithateit. I hate it so much, I'm not even going to finish this paragraph with an ironic rhyme of my own. I'm that much in the zone*.

*Crap.

The Girlfriend Experience

... and no, this has nothing to do with my personal life.

Instead, it's the latest latest film from the enigmatic Steven Soderbergh.



Two things:

1) The movie looks very Soderbergh-y. No idea if we'll get good Soderbergh or bad Soderbergh. But it's always worth a look.

2) That background rhythm is killer. It's a shame they pulled it from the "feature" trailer, because so rarely do we hear exceptional drum work. The marginalization of the drummer is my biggest complaint about mainstream music. There. End of yet another music musing.

I have no interest in seeing this movie ...

... or do I?


With thanks to MTV's Headbanger's Blog, metal/heavy rock fans might just have reason to be excited about Crank: High Voltage:

On April 7, 32 new [TFO add: former Faith No More frontman Mike] Patton compositions appeared on the soundtrack for the film “Crank 2: High Voltage,” which hits theaters April 17. The movie again features Jason Statham as Chev Chelios, an unfortunate British thug suffering from heart problems. In this case, his character wakes to find his heart has been removed and replaced with the equivalent of an analog alarm clock, which requires regular jolts of electricity and high-energy excitement to keep from shutting down.

The action that follows as Chelios searches for the Chinese mobsters who stole his real heart, is fast-paced and unrelenting. Playing cameos in the film are Tool vocalist Maynard James Keenan, Nine Inch Nails guitarist Danny Lohner, Linkin Park’s Chester Bennington and country musician Dwight Yoakam.

Sure, it's the standard actioner-needs-loud-music thing, but hey -- one of these days, one of these songs is going to creep into Oscar voters' skulls and bury itself deep inside, not unlike when Eminem and Three 6 Mafia took the gold. I mean, whoda figured songs like those would win, especially way back when we were the way we were?

For now, guess we'll just enjoy the best of the two names on this list that really stir the heavy music excitement: Patton and Keenan.

Killing (Nazis) is their business ...

... and business is good*:

*Don't get that reference? Click here ... if you dare!



As for the film itself, I'm honestly quite intrigued*. Has camp-classic potential ... or could be extremely awful.

*And no, it has nothing to do with American Idol.

Let's just hope Q cools it with the excessive dialogue (NSFW) this time.

Oscar winners go to J-school

Non-journalists might not find this amusing, but I did*.

*And not in a snobby, they-don't-know-what-they're-talking-about way. It's just funny to hear actors speak seriously about something so close to you. Would make anyone go, "Well yeah, but ..."



P.S. Looks like I've been going to the wrong 4 o'clock meetings ...

In the face!

No clue if this will be any good (although the studio seems to have high hopes) ...



Also, trying to decide which bit is funnier:

1) The baby getting a car door to the face, or

2) Mike Tyson completing the world's most famous drum fill with ... a punch to Zach Galifianakis' face*.

*Yep, that's at least three face gags (below) in one trailer ... Although I'm guessing Akeem isn't complaining.

Overlooked (but for how long?): T.O.P. 1 2 3

The whole remake thing is kind of confusing.

On one hand -- WHAT ARE THEY DOING TO MY MOVIE?!?!?! On the other, maybe the remake will bring attention to the (almost certainly better) original.

Here's hoping the latter happens this June, when Tony Scott (ugh) offers his version (numbers in the title instead of words, of course) of the 1974 subway hijacker flick The Taking of Pelham One Two Three, one whose name* probably isn't known by many young people today (except maybe Beastie Boys fans).

*It must be mentioned that this is based on a book. So *technically* this year's version could be viewed as an "adaptation" instead of a "remake." However, I'm guessing the new film wasn't inspired by a trip to Borders.


Now for more guessing, based solely on the trailer and Scott's history: Something tells me the new version won't be quite like the old one.

What makes the original so memorable is not just its grabber of a plot, in which Walter Matthau (who morphs into Denzel Washington for 2009) is a transit cop negotiating with/tracking a group of subway train hijackers led by Robert Shaw (who is as composed in the '74 verson as John Travolta appears to be over-the-top maniacal in '09).

No, what makes T.O.P. 1 2 3 is that it's so damn funny*.

*It even has Frank Costanza!



Yeah, it's definitely not PC. It's edgy. There's racism and sexism here, but it's not like it's condoning that sort of thing. Just acknowledging that it, like so many other '70s-era NYC quirks, exists. Really, the T.O.P. 1 2 3's gritty realism and crackling dialogue embodies everything that's great about the better examples of 1970s filmmaking*.

*No doubt Quentin Tarantino noticed; the hijackers give each other names like Mr. Blue and Mr. Green, just as they do in Reservoir Dogs.

And that music ...

Almost there: Observe and Report

Ronnie: Dammit. We were *so* close.

Det. Harrison: Oh, if only ...

Yes, if only. If only Observe and Report had gone all the way*, rather than trying to mix a brilliantly uncomfortable story of a delusional, bipolar mall cop (Seth Rogen) with scenes that seemed to exist merely to be outrageous/funny and appeal to the the Rogen/Judd Apatow crowd (Danny McBride as a drug dealer? Again?).

*And I'm not talking about this part.

Because O&R really was onto something here. Sure, some of those ridiculous moments are quite funny, but -- as has been mentioned elsewhere -- the film has a less-moody Taxi Driver feel to it, but doesn't completely follow through on it. It didn't have Scorsese/De Niro potential, but it certainly could have existed in a nearby zip code.

Rogen and writer/director Jody Hill portray cop Ronnie Barnhardt's manic-depressive state so subtly (and smartly), it's almost an aside. Really, Ronnie's what happened to that high school outcast who didn't fit into any of those "nerdy" or "artsy" categories. He doesn't think he's a loser. Far from it. So what we have here is a character on the edge, a dreamer without a distinct goal, just someone looking for ... something, whatever it is, that confirms he's as great as he believes.

Which is a scary and intriguing setup, something that could have kept its share of comedic moments while existing in even darker territory, rather than jolting awkwardly between hilarious and frightening.

Which is why O&R falls into the category of "good, not great."

If only ...

BONUS POINTS ...
... for Rogen's performance, which had better earn him consideration for the Golden Globes Best Actor/Musical or Comedy category*.

*And while we're at it, why are musicals still a part of this category? How is playing Cole Porter even remotely similar to playing Dewey Cox? Let's change this before Daniel Day-Lewis becomes the next musical star to steal a Globe nod from a deserving comic actor.

... for filming in a near-vacant mall in Albuquerque, N.M.

... for "born-again virgin."

... for a cathartic moment involving stand-up "comic" Patton Oswalt.

Moon Unit Rockwell

Seeing as how there's considerable bloggonet buzz about this just-released trailer -- plus some solid preliminary Rotten Tomatoes results for the film itself -- figured I might float* a few words of my own.

*Get it? Float? On the moon? Ah, whadda you know from funny, anyway?



I really have no opinion here. Just the movie has the same name as one of my former cats.

That, and that Sam Rockwell fella is pretty good. Maybe, if we're lucky, one of these days he'll join Sylvester Stallone and Tom Berenger on the list of Oscar-nominated actors.