up in the air

this film was receiving considerable attention before its release. jason reitman's previous two films, thank you for smoking, and juno (nominated for best picture) were both very well received. george clooney is always more than a solid lead these days (forget about the ancient 'batman & robin').

this film was very well done. it was well-acted, well shot, well directed, and had a solid story. every part of this film screams for an oscar, but i do not think it will win. what this movie lacks is uniqueness. i find in a few years i will think back to this film as a very good one, but not one that leaves a lasting impression of any sort, on me. for example, i recently watched 'paris, texas' which was just re-released on the criterion collection, and i find my thoughts continually drawn back to the film, even weeks later.

the story is a little cliche and on the predictable side, but the strong performances all around help mask it to a certain extent. danny mcbride is freaking hilarious in the limited amount of screen time he gets. he really steals the show. as with all of reitman's films, humour is its strong suit. there are many very funny parts in this film. reitman is a master of blending emotion and humour together.

this is a very solid film, one of the year's best. however, i find it does not invoke enough spark or originality to make it the best of the year.

invictus

clint eastwood is one of the most consistent and hard working directors out there right now. he consistently release multiple movies a year, and they are always good. eastwood, morgan freeman, and matt damon hook up in this rugby movie about south africa and nelson mandela. this really is not much of a sports movie, which is why some did not like it very well. it is all about the changing climate in south africa at the time, and its effects on the country and the nation's rugby team.

the film is very understated and focuses on little details that give it life. one does not find overwhelming sounds of sports fans that cause adrenaline to surge, which is why i liked it. it does not seek to glamorize the game of rugby, but rather to present it in a realistic fashion.

i didn't overwhelming love or hate this film. i liked it better than a lot of people who are downplaying the positive reviews it has garnered. i feel it is very underrated and has flown under the radar all last year.

on a side note, while they both were solid in the movie, i do not think freeman and damon did enough acting wise, to receive the academy nominations they got for best actor and best supporting actor respectively.

a serious man

i'm a serious fan of the coen brothers. their unique vision for each of their films, and the way they inject dark humour into their more serious films is incredible. 'no country for old men' was a high point for the brothers, as that cormac mccarthy adaptation won best picture. i would not be surprised if this film won best picture either. it is that good.

the story, set in the 1960s, revolves around a jewish college professor whose life is falling apart. he tries to make sense of this failing world, looking to his faith and the fact that he himself has done nothing to bring this on, but he finds no real answers. the film had me wanting to shout at the screen at Larry, to stop allowing everyone to walk all over him all the time, but alas he routinely takes the coward's way out. michael stuhlbarg should have been nominated for best actor, and as far as i am concerned this was the biggest oscar snub. i feel his performance was better than george clooney's in 'up in the air,' and morgan freeman in 'invictus,' who both got nominated.

the intricate story is among the best that the coen brothers have crafted. it will be very funny one moment, then almost painful the next. the interaction with Larry and the different rabbis he visits is also a high point for the film.

i enjoyed this film immensely. at the time i watched it, it was my favorite film of the year (though another has now taken up that slot), but i still feel is it one of the years finest, and i hope it gets the credit it deserves at the oscars in the form of some golden statues.

fantastic mr. fox

i am both a huge wes anderson and roald dahl fan, so i was obviously excited to hear that anderson was adapting the dahl book 'the fantastic mr. fox' in the form of a stop animation film.

this film was brilliant. definitely one of the most memorable movies i've seen this year. everything about this movie works right. george clooney's deep instantly recognizable voice is perfect for mr. fox, and voice acting for the others parts are also spot on. Jason Schwartzman is particularly funny as the fox's 'different' son Ash.

the story is very funny. it has that great edge where it would be funny for kids, but it has a lot of adult humor in it as well. it was always amusing, never boring, and i was sad when the fun experience had to end. visually, the amount of fine detail always found in anderson movies is present here as well. also, not being a regular stop-animation director (such as Henry Selick) he presents a lot of camera shots and close-ups that stop animation movies generally avoid. this unique film style works perfectly though.

i cannot say enough about this movie. it's my favorite wes anderson film since 'rushmore.' it has countless laugh out loud moments, and it really makes you feel like you're in the world it presents throughout it. it was the first movie in quite some time where i went to watch it again within a week, and it was equally as funny the second time.

the box

'donnie darko' is one of my all time favorite movies. i love how many of the questions presented in the film are left open to interpretation, yet enough is resolved and comes together at the end where i left satisfied and intrigued. i did not harbor these same warm feelings toward director richard kelly's second film 'southland tales.' it was simply awful, and only god knows why dwanye johnson continues to act.

being such a huge fan of 'darko,' i was excited to see 'the box.' the premise seemed promising, and i had heard it presented some interesting topics for discussion (something i love when a film does).

it starts out pretty solid. the dialogue wasn't tremendous and some interactions felt awkward, but i had no major complaints at first. when the family is presented with the box and given the option to press it for a million dollars but someone they don't know will die, the story began to get rolling and i was enjoying it. the mystery of the presenter of the box, and whether or not the family was next in line to be killed seemed to be setting up for a really solid middle act. however, this is not what kelly delivers us. like an ADD kid on the way to the store to get some milk, this movie loses its focus and gets way off track. it happens so fast too, that i had to step back and wonder how the beginning of the movie led to this point, with an army of 'zombies' chasing people through a library. it really gets completely absurd during the middle of the film.

the nice twist at the end regarding the fate of the family was not strong enough to erase all the nonsense that had just occurred. i was very disappointed with this film, more so than with most bad films, because this could have been a very good film. if it would had stuck to the plot and rooted itself into some sort of foundation, then i might be recommending it right now. however, it ends up being just mediocre. it is definitely not the worst movie i have seen this year, but a very forgettable average one.

paranormal activity

this movie was scary, very scary. i don't often watch scary movies unless they are supposed to be exceptional, so i have seen movies such as the strangers, the shining, and blair witch project. the latter appears to be the film that this one is drawing from. a cast of no name actors shot entirely on a home camera, add to that a shoestring budget, and you have the scariest movie of the year (perhaps the past few years). this film is also a testament to internet buzz, as word of mouth helped it go from select theaters to a large nationwide release.

this film is surprisingly well done. it has excellent pacing and development as the hauntings grow worse and worse as the film goes on. there is a great atmosphere and unease carried throughout, and during the night scenes the unease becomes outright terror.

talking to people who have seen the movie, i find it interesting that most define different moments in the film as the scariest. there was however a consensus that the film itself was a terrifying experience. the few actors in this film were all great. the two homeowners had great chemistry, were very funny at times, and acted very genuinely during the supernatural scenes.

this film is definitely a highlight in a year where i have watched many new films. i am always a fan of watching films that elicit specific emotions from the viewer, and while excitement/anger/joy/relief/redemption are the ones that people usually like, i myself also enjoy the feeling of absolute terror when elicited by a well-done scary film

where the wild things are

i was not one who read 'where the wild things are' as a child (it was more my older brother's generation's book), but i was very familiar with the work and i am always interested in anything spike jonze does. he has such an inventive mind, and the group of directors/writers he associates with are all equally innovative.

being a short book that needed to be adapted into a full length film, jonze adds some great depth and background that does not compromise the story at all. it helps make the film much more than a mindless kid romp. deep inside it really is a story about adolescence and how kids interact with others in the real (and often unreal) world. parallels in the monster's personality's mirror situations he struggles with his regular life.

the film is very funny at times, very scary at times (i thought for a minute he really was going to get eaten!), and very heart warming at others, which is everything a thoughtful summer kids tale should be.

the world and the monster's look absolutely sensational. i credit jonze and his team with creating a perfect visual rendition of the book. the characters are greatly voice acted too, with the exception that k.w.'s voice is a bit too chill/surfish for the rest of the gang. other problems are that some of the interactions between the characters in the middle of the plot feel a little strange, and i didn't understand where the director was going with them; some situations were just a little wonky. another slight problem i had was that i felt the kid was a spoiled brat and was only likable in the most dangerous of situations when you didn't want him to die.

otherwise, i really enjoyed this film. it definitely made me reminisce about the days when me and my friends were create absurd wonderful stories out of our minds and then act them out as if everything was real. i look forward to building an awesome snow fort as a result of this film (though the fort in 'snow day' trumps the one in this movie). due to its scary parts and deep themes 'where the wild things are' is primarily suited for adults who need to remember their youthful days, though i do not doubt that kids will like this film too.