12 Rounds

Director: Renny Harlin
Starring: John Cena, Aiden Gillen, Ashley Scott, Steve Harris, Gonzalo Menendez, Brian J. White, Taylor Cole
Running Time: 108 min.
Rating: PG-13

★★ 1/2 (out of ★★★★)

For John Cena, timing is everything. And I'm not just talking about his wrestling career. He's lucky enough to be starring in an action movie that's following one of the worst action movies I've seen in years. It was pretty much a given that 12 Rounds, the latest WWE Films release would at least be more entertaining than the latest Transformers sequel. What was less clear was whether it would actually be any good. It really isn't, but it's still the most impressive WWE produced film yet and thoroughly entertaining in its badness. There's actually some level of directorial competence at work here and it appears someone at least knew what type of film needed to be made. It's a cheesy, mindless direct-to-DVD actioner of the week with a lot of laughs and stupidity. Approach it as that and it's at least possible to enjoy yourself, which is more than can be said for most of their other efforts.

I guess it's a credit to director Renny Harlin that he fills the film with such unintended hilarity and craziness that Cena's performance is the last thing on our minds. The movie isn't dependent on him in any way and his weaknesses are well hidden, if not completely invisible here. That's how it should be. Harlin actually does such a good job covering for Cena's shortcomings as an actor maybe he can have a future directing episodes of WWE Raw on Mondays.

The script, on the other hand, is off the wall, even for this type of film, and features one of the more unnervingly bizarre villains in a recent bad action movie. It's hard to tell what's weirder: The performance of the actor playing him or the character's 12 round "plan," a conceit so complicated and time consuming he may as well be auditioning as Jigsaw's next apprentice. Still, despite not caring a lick about the protagonist's fate or his mission, it's hard to really slam a movie that lets us follow the journey of an obese man down an elevator shaft all the way down to the bottom, gives us a grown man raising a toy Matchbox car in victory, or employs the use of a defribillator in a mid-air showdown. It's bad, but boy is it funny.

Cena is New Orleans Police Detective Danny Fisher, who a year ago was part of a sting operation that put notorious terrorist and arms dealer Miles Jackson (The Wire's Aiden Gillen) behind bars and unintentionally resulted in the death of his girlfriend, Erika (Taylor Cole). Now he's out and wants revenge on Danny for taking the love of his life. The plan: kidnap Danny's girlfriend, Molly (Ashley Scott) and make him complete a 12 round game to save her, with each round presenting a challenging life or death task. If he completes all 12 rounds, she lives. If not, they both die. This is made all the more challenging by the involvement of bitter F.B.I. agent Aiken (Steve Harris) whose motives for helping Danny get through this are questionable and selfish. Keeping Molly alive is close to last on his priority list, or at least far behind making an example of Miles. He has his own axe to grind and if innocent people have to lose their lives in the process then so be it. Will Danny make it through all 12 rounds? Will Molly survive? Will Triple H. ever retire? Well, okay, that last one isn't directly related, but you get the idea.

Daniel Kunka's silly script is absolutely insane and makes little to no sense. Best of luck trying to figure out what constitutes a "round." I got the first two. Miles blows up Danny's house and kidnaps his girlfriend. It's after that where things start to get a little fuzzy as at times during the film multiple "rounds" are crammed into single tasks (like one involving a bomb). The perilous situations themselves vary from being ridiculously complicated to mind numbingly simple. There's just no in between as Kunka seems to be throwing ideas out there to see what sticks. Some are much more exciting than others, namely that aforementioned elevator scene and Danny's attempt to stop a runaway bus as it plows through the streets of New Orleans in a sequence that recalls (or rather rips off) Speed.

As a director, Harlin's track record contains some genre hits (Die Hard 2, Cliffhanger) and many more misses (Cutthroat Island, Driven and The Covenant) but the man does know how to shoot an action scene efficiently, which helps here a lot. His best days as a filmmaker are obviously behind him but for this kind of low level B action movie material his style (or what there is of it) is suitable. One scene where Danny comes face to face with his adversary but for reasons I can't reveal is unable to do anything, is tense and well staged.

If you get past Aiden Gillen's uncanny resemblance to former Survivor contestant Johnny Fairplay (which I honestly had problems doing) and are able to decifer whether he actually is speaking with an Irish accent, you'll find his performance to be a hoot. Existing in an acting realm somewhere between being brilliantly awful and awfully brilliant he doesn't really have a menacing presence at all and that's why it kind of works. It makes the role a little more believable because he looks and acts like a regular guy with a plan.

Gillen actually plays him like he's smart and ahead of the curve, which is a sharp contrast to the ridiculous actions this screenplay have him carry out. To put it mildly, Miles' plan has some big holes in it and at times I found myself laughing hysterically at the amount of years this character must have put into his master plan, which besides allowing no room for error, feels like it came straight out of a Hollywood screenwriting factory. The script also makes the mistake of having his motivations be revealed as being significantly less than they first appeared, robbing the story of what little psychological intrigue there is and making the villain seem more like a small-time crook than a mastermind. It's an odd decision that doesn't benefit the dramatics of the story in the slightest.

It's a real irony if you're familiar with Cena's in-ring career that the failings of this film fall squarely on the writing, not him. None of this would have been improved if he was replaced by any other B or C level actor as the lead and his work in this is a vast improvement over his embarrassingly stiff turn in The Marine a couple of years ago. The role of a risk-taking police detective also seems to suit him much better. This isn't to say it's a emotionally engaging performance at all, but it's at least a competent one that doesn't make the film any worse than it already is. He's your prototypical, action action hero and for a generic action thriller like this, that's enough.

Because his performance is merely adequate the strain is on the script to get us to care about Danny's relationship with his girlfriend and his quest to save her. I didn't. Ashley Scott is horrid in her limited role and no time is donated to the two of them. We haven't a clue why he'd even bother, other than the fact that she's supposed to be hot. This was expected though and it's hard to come down too hard on that decision. This is supposed to be a mindless action movie and I fear if time were actually spent in establishing a meaningful relationship between Danny and Molly the two actors wouldn't have been up to the task of conveying it and the film would have sunk further. Do you really want to see Cena playing house with his girlfriend? I can't even picture it.

No attention or background is given to the Miles character either, which does hurt the film a little. That could have been interesting and enhanced the narrative. Miles' motivations were more important than Danny's in caring what happens. The most interesting sub-plot concerns Harris' renegade F.B.I. agent, thanks in no small part to his commanding performance, which almost seems to be out of a better film. Even with all its problems though, the 108 minutes thankfully came and went quickly.

You could make an airtight case that WWE should just stay out of producing feature films altogether but as long as they turn even the slightest profit either in theaters or on DVD that isn't going to happen any time soon. We're stuck with them. Next up: The Marine 2 (can't wait). I would say this nudges out The Condemned as their best effort and technically it's difficult to argue that it didn't deserve a brief theatrical run (albeit about 3 days). It's also difficult to argue that it shouldn't have gone straight to DVD. And in a way, it did. Supposedly, all WWE films are now going straight to the bargain shelf, which is probably a good move. But if they're serious about producing movies, 12 Rounds is at least the type of movie they should be making. And Cena can breathe a sigh of relief knowing that he gave this his best shot.

Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen

Director: Michael Bay
Starring: Shia LeBeouf, Megan Fox, Josh Duhamel, Tyrese Gibson, John Turturro, Isabel Lucas
Running Time: 147 min.
Rating: PG-13

★ 1/2 (out of ★★★★)

For the longest time I've shared in the widespread belief that different people have different tastes and reactions to any particular film is entirely subjective. There's no right or wrong, just different opinions and reasoning for backing it up. Sometimes critics hate a movie that audiences love and vice versa. It's just the way of the world. When we don't agree, we agree to disagree. Or at least that's what I thought before I endured Michael Bay's brutal, painful assault on the senses and brain known as Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen, which is every bit as bad as you've heard and then some.

It's less a film than an ordeal and it's taken me nearly a week to recover from it. Having already grossed over $400 million dollars worldwide and counting doesn't it stand to reason that Bay must have done something right? No, he hasn't. I don't care how many people saw this movie and loved it, how "critic-proof" it supposedly is or how much repeat business it's drumming up. The audiences are WRONG.

WRONG. WRONG. WRONG.

The critics are RIGHT. Everyone was warned and didn't listen. There's hardly a single redeeming quality about this piece of cinematic trash and it was the first time I exited a theater in actual physical pain. I had a headache, my back hurt, my ass hurt and I felt nauseous. Going in, I felt fine. You may have read reviews of this movie that claim it "insults the intelligence" of moviegoers. How I wish that were true. I'm breaking one of the unwritten rules of film criticism to take a cheap shot at audiences. But you know what? They deserve it. And if you sat in the theater I did you'd agree with me. When the final credits rolled this film got a standing ovation.

A STANDING OVATION!

I can't remember any movie I've ever seen that's gotten a standing ovation. But I should have seen it coming. So much enthusiastic laughter and applause filled the theater you'd think you were at a George Carlin stand-up show. What movie were they watching? What planet did I land on? You'll have to forgive me because during the course of this review I'll occasionally be referring to Michael Bay as "MIKE Bay." It just seems more appropriate... and funnier. Can't you just picture this guy him introducing himself with sunglasses and a smirk saying "No, call me Mike." So I will.

As much as I want to completely place all the blame on him for this nearly 150 minute disaster I just can't. He's just doing what he was paid to do and happens to do very well: BLOW THINGS UP .And he makes it look as pretty as possible. He's giving everyone what they want, which just might be the scariest revelation to come out of the success of this movie, other than the fact that Steven Spielberg co-produced it.

For the most part, I have no problems with Mike as a filmmaker. I enjoyed The Rock. Didn't mind Armageddon. Don't carry the same seething hatred for the ridiculous Pearl Harbor that everyone else seems to and thought the first Transformers film was crazy fun. I'm also all for "checking your brain at the door" and losing yourself in an action spectacle. But this doesn't even work as that. You know it's a bad sign when blatant racism is the LEAST offensive aspect of your film. Rather than re-cap the plot in detail (which would be impossible anyway) it's better just to list the things that sent moviegoers bursting into uproarious laughter and applause.

- A robot humping Megan Fox's leg

- A robot with testicles

- the words "bitch" and "pussy" constantly being thrown around for shock value in a film based on a children's toy line.

-John Turturro in a thong

- A middle aged woman getting high off hash brownies and making a spectacle of herself on a college campus.

-Two racially caricatured robots, Skids and Mudflap, speaking in ebonics and bragging about how they can't read.

How hilarious. Between those scenes, the loud explosions, robots killing each other and mile-a-minute editing, an incomprehensible story is somehow squeezed in. In an opening that comes off as a nursery school version of 2001: A Space Odyssey, we're informed that the war between Autobots and Decepticons has been raging since prehistoric times. Now the Decepticons, led by their original master, The Fallen (voiced by Tony Todd), have returned to Earth to resurrect Megatron (voiced by Hugo Weaving) and kill Optimus Prime (voiced by Peter Cullen). Once that's accomplished they can destroy the sun...or something like that.

The only hope is college-bound Sam Witwicky (Shia LeBeouf) who discovers he possesses a shard of the Allspark that's causing his brain to see all sorts of crazy symbols and images. When he's not busy trying to save Earth from an invading alien race he's dealing with his annoying, overambitious roommate Leo (Ramon Rodriguez) and fighting off the advances of a sexy student (Isabel Lucas).

The less said about the relationship with his parents (Kevin Dunn and Judy White) the better. At least they seemed like real people in the first film. Here, the script has them re-play the same tired unhappily married joke over and over again with the added detail that mom's a pothead. Sadder still, is that while poorly executed and unfunny, the college-set scenes are probably the most tolerable in the film. It's all downhill from there. The rest of the movie is some sort of seizure inducing blur. There isn't even a second to come up for air and reflect upon how messy everything is or how little sense it makes.

This is Mike's middle finger to all the critics who dared find fault in his 2007 film, which not only boasted a far more coherent story than this, but a genuine sense of wonder and discovery. It was far from any kind of landmark achievement in storytelling but it got the job done in an effective manner. It would stand to reason that a sequel would at least be able to equal that considering the bar wasn't exactly set too high to begin with.

Everything that worked in the first film is trashed all while managing to magnify what was bad to excruciating levels. Wanted more screen time for the robots? Now there's too much. Less human relationships? Now there's none. Ironically, the one relationship we cared most about in the first film, between Sam and his Bumblebee Camaro, is all but completely excised and, with the exception of a brief scene early, Bumblebee is hardly in the film at all.

The "relationship" between Sam and his porn star girlfriend Mikaela (Fox) is far less effective than in the original, probably because of the pathetic attempt made at evolving Mikaela from a lust object into Sam's girlfriend. Fox just isn't believable as ANYONE'S girlfriend on screen and I don't necessarily mean that the way you think I do. Can you picture yourself going to the movies with Megan Fox? How about just hanging out? Or playing miniature golf? See my point? She's just there to look hot and have Bay ogle (or more accurately, nearly rape) her with the camera. That wouldn't be such a problem if the screenwriters knew her role and weren't dense enough to actually force a dynamic between her and Sam.

There's a sub-plot centering around who will say those three magic words first. Of course, since the only three magic words we'd ever believe Mikaela would hear from anyone are, "I LUST YOU," it's a little hard to buy. I described Fox's performance (as if it mattered) in the first film as "fine." To call her performance in this wooden would be an insult to wood. To her credit she seems to understand that, or at least understands the necessity of giving quotable soundbites that cater to her many fans.

This is a movie where even she wears out her welcome. It's like being given a gourmet meal at a restaurant while the waiter keeps screaming in your ear how great it is. As a result, my appreciation for her decreased about 50 percent.The next Angelina Jolie? She has a ways to go. And this is coming from someone who doesn't think that's even an admirable goal to shoot for. But she's right. These films aren't about acting. In related news, the Earth is round. By dwelling on Fox this much, does that make me as bad as Bay? Maybe, but you can't deny that the public's fascination with her is a million times more interesting than anything in this film.

Spielberg's adopted son gives a performance that isn't awful so much as it's irrelevant. He's a little more grating than in the first with his stammering, awkward everyman character, but that's in line with Bay's tendency to amp everything up this go around. He does fine with what he's given but it's getting to the point where we have to ask ourselves why Spielberg hand-picked this kid out of every single young actor working today to become the biggest star in the world. We have to find out soon, before Shia's star power eclipses his talent, if that hasn't happened already. In other words, he needs to pick more diverse projects with better directors. If not, don't be surprised if he comes forward with some very incriminating photos of Spielberg soon.

I'd be more willing to let Spielberg off the hook for producing this and assume he took a more "hands off" approach this time if he hadn't been involved in the making of Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull and Eagle Eye. But he was and each new project he's credited to these days seems to be yet another stain on his previously impeachable filmography. Now we're going on almost a full decade where he's not only failed to contribute anything of substantial value to the film world, but is responsible for producing some real junk. This begs the question: How much longer is he going to get a free ride from critics and audiences based solely on accomplishments from over 15 years ago?

John Turturro's eccentric goverment agent returns except he isn't a government agent anymore. But he's more eccentric. He actually gives the most entertaining performance in the film and his interplay with Rodriguez's Leo is a highlight. But most of that is relegated to the third act, by which point I was starting to lose conciousness from all the mind numbing effects. By the time Sam's parents just showed up in the desert for no reason and without explanation I was completely lost. And this was scripted by Robert Orci and Alex Kurtzman, who were most recently responsible for penning the very successful recent Star Trek reboot. In the film's only improvement from the original, Josh Duhamel and Tyrese Gibson's military officers are fittingly given nothing to do at all since their roles were pointless to begin with. You know things are bad when I find myself actually missing Jon Voight. The forgettable Isabel Lucas takes over for Rachael Taylor as the second place hottie and accomplishes the impossible in giving a worse performance than Fox with far less screen time.

The controversy concerning Skids and Mudflap is overblown not because the robots aren't offensive stereotypes but because they hardly see any screen time and serve no purpose other than to get some cheap laughs. Their inclusion is pointless, which may be the the most offensive thing about it. Comparisons to Jar Jar Binks are unwarranted. He's more annoying than these two, but at least his primary purpose wasn't to piss people off. It was just a bad judgment call on Lucas' part. This feels like something uglier than that. And stupider.

A temptation exists to give this a lower score than one and a half stars but doing so would be unfair since this is a "technically" impressive motion picture that could have only been made by a talented filmmaker. And at 147 minutes at least it doesn't drag. How can it when it's too busy pummeling you into submission with sensory overload? This is Bay at his absolute worst, or best, depending on your perspective.

This review is more indicative of my disappointment with the film's success and what it means for the the movie industry than the actual work itself, which is obviously pretty awful. One thing's for sure though: There's a party at Stephen Sommers' house and Sienna's bringing the keg. I'd be shocked if Sommers' upcoming G.I. Joe: The Rise of Cobra isn't a better Hasbro adaptation than this. Just watch me eat my words later on that. In any event, I'm sure he's waiting with open arms and knows it bodes well for him that audiences would so willingly embrace a film this dumb.

I'm not missing the point here. I know what movies like this are supposed to accomplish. We all do. Or at least I thought we did. This doesn't accomplish it. It's as if elements from previous summer blockbusters were fused together and Bay's faking it. I go to movies to watch stories with characters, not things blow up for two and a half hours.

My biggest worry when I review movies is that I come off as some sort of psuedo-intellectual snob. I just want to have fun and consider myself a fan first and a critic second. This appeals to neither in me and when it ended I had little desire to either talk or write about. The critics really earned their keep this time (with one predictable exception). But maybe I should stand corrected that fans fully embraced the film They did have one major problem with it: That Megatron bowed in servitude. Oh the horror. I don't know how I'm going to sleep tonight knowing such an oversight could be made amidst the film's other gargantuan problems.

2008 was a bad year for movies. Could 2009 actually be WORSE? Is it possible? If Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen is any indication it very well can be. When it ended I felt ripped off...and I saw it FOR FREE. If audiences keep turning out for junk like this you have to wonder where we should really place the blame. Hotshot action directors need to earn a buck also. Michael Bay will continue making movies like this only as long as we go to see them.

Friday the 13th (2009)

Director: Marcus Nispel
Starring: Jared Paladecki, Danielle Panabaker, Aaron Yoo, Amanda Righetti, Travis Van Winkle, Derek Mears
Running Time: 106 min.
Rating: R

★★ (out of ★★★★)

When I heard Friday the 13th would be the latest horror movie franchise subject to "re-imagining" for a new generation of audiences, I actually thought it was a great idea. Much like Halloween, the series had been beaten into the ground by its many worthless sequels and the only logical option left was a reboot. I also couldn't sympathize with fans who complained at the proposed plan to get Jason in the hockey mask as soon as possible, unlike the 1981 original. The iconic hockey mask IS Friday the 13th. Without it there's no film, or at least not a film anyone would be interested in seeing. To their credit, at least the filmmakers knew that.

Incidentally, one of those filmmakers just so happens to be Michael Bay, who when not raking in gazillions of dollars making racist robot movies, has a little side hobby of butchering horror classics for his Platinum Dunes production company. They were responsible for the two Texas Chainsaw Massacre remakes, which at the time I kind of enjoyed, but now looking back, seem slick yet entirely forgettable. The same problem surfaces here but worse as this prequel/sequel/remake or whatever you choose to call it almost seems to be trying too hard, while simultaneously putting forth no effort at all.

In attempting to jam all the aspects of the first four films into one movie to appease hardcore fans the project instead turns into a structural mess with too many characters, too many killings in rapid succession of one another and a total lack of suspense. It's your typical torture porn, not necessarily any superior to the other recently unsuccessful remakes of Prom Night and My Bloody Valentine. It isn't so much a Friday the 13th film as it is just going through the motions of one. But that's not even what I take issue with. The real problem is that it just isn't any fun.

Yes, the original films were bad, but at least they were bad in the best possible way. The very definition of a guilty pleasure. It's also the only horror series I can remember that maintained the same consistency of badness throughout. You can sit on the couch for hours to watch a marathon and marvel how each film is as bad as next. No better, no worse. That's impressive. There's something to be said for consistency. It's no wonder they spawned a great NES game and a short-lived TV series arguably better than the films. They were just so much fun and I don't think I fully appreciated how fun they really were until watching director Marcus Nispel attempt to suck the joy out of them with this tiresome effort. It's a testament to the Jason mystique that even this film manages to have its moments. Not many, but a few. It's just unfortunate that they come too late.

The movie opens by clumsily cutting and pasting the first film's narrative into a 2-minute flashback sequence showing how as a child the hideously deformed Jason Voorhees witnessed his mother's death at Camp Crystal Lake. Say what you want about Rob Zombie's Halloween remake but at least he dared to try something different with the backstory and didn't just relegate it to a forgettable throwaway sequence two minutes into the film.

Flash forward to present day and a the first group of nondescript, interchangeable teens arrive at the now abandoned Camp Crystal Lake for some sex and drugs, skeptical of the Jason urban legend. Their skepticism soon ends when he hacks them up one by one. But notice I said the FIRST GROUP. That's because the film's first twenty minutes is actually a PROLOGUE. So went through all this and the movie hasn't even started! A needlessly complicated approach to what should be a relatively straightforward story.

Now it's six weeks later and Clay Miller (Jared Padalecki) is searching for his missing sister, Whitney (Amanda Righetti) who was a part of that ill fated group. Along the way he encounters another group of teens heading to a lake house that belongs to the parents of frat boy prick Trent (Travis Van Winkle). Take a guess as to whether or not he survives until the end of the film. He's joined by his girlfriend Jenna (Danielle Panabaker), who to Trent's dismay takes a liking to Clay and is sympathetic to his situation. Along for the ride are their friends, token Asian sidekick Chewie (Aaron Yoo), aspiring rapper Lawrence (Arlen Escarpeta), slutty Bree (Julianna Guill), annoying Nolan (Ryan Hansen) and his would be girlfriend, ditzy Chelsea (Willa Ford). They are a step up from the first group and while a few of them even have identifiable personality traits of some sort, one word descriptions suit them just fine.

Choo is essentially reprising the same goofy role he played in Disturbia, 21 and Nick and Norah's Infinite Playlist with worse results while Hansen is channeling his obnoxious Dick Casablancas character from Veronica Mars all over again, but accomplishing far less. The only standouts (if such a word could even be used in this case) are thankfully the two leads, Padalecki and Panabaker, who at least manage to give performances that aren't completely awful. The rest of the cast is forgettable, something that can't often be said for previous entries in the series (especially The Final Chapter). But that hardly matters. They're all there to scream and die anyway. In the film's final hour Nispel actually seems to remember that and the story picks up some steam, cleverly referencing some of the series' most famous moments, albeit with far less creativity and excitement.

There's at least one memorable kill scene, well shot and choreographed at the lake that makes you believe the ingredients were there for an inspired reimagining of this material. The problem with the rest of it is there's just no suspense and intrigue, the script falsely approximates teen speak and there's an undercurrent of mean spirited humorlessness that isn't found in even the worst of the previous films. Even the trademark gratuitous nudity and drug use feels forced and strangely out of place, as if the screenwriters were just marking off a checklist. So much weed is either consumed or talked about I thought I was watching a Cheech & Chong movie. And remind me to petition the MPAA to pass a law blocking the use of Night Ranger's "Sister Christian" in any film not directed by P.T. Anderson. It's sacralege hearing it in the opening minutes of a film like this.

As for the big hockey mask moment, when we see how Jason settled on his favorite brand of face wear, it doesn't feel like such a big moment because Nispel draws such attention to it. When we saw him surprisingly appear with the mask on in Part III it felt like a huge deal because it was a surprise and we had no idea at the time how important it was. You can go back and watch it now and it'll still get the same reaction, regardless of that film's quality. Here, when Jason graduates from sack to hockey mask the only reaction you're likely to have is: "Oh, there's the hockey mask." The important element of surprise is missing no matter how much the music is pumped up or how Nispel chooses to frame it. They would have been better off just starting the film with Jason in the mask than attempting to compete with the legacy of the franchise, as silly as it is.

Stuntman Derek Mears does a fine job stepping in for Kane Hodder, who many consider to be the best actor to play the role up to this point. I say that with reservations since I haven't a clue what special talent it takes to run around in a hockey mask and stalk people. It can't be difficult and it stands to reason anyone physically imposing could play the part well enough. But a mistake is made in speeding up Jason's movements. Nispel is already clueless as far as building suspense and that decision just makes it worse. At least when Jason was lumbering around in the previous films there was time for tension to be built. Now it's kill after kill after kill. It just doesn't mean anything anymore. At least not like it used to. None of the other movies were scary, but some of them were suspenseful...and funny. This is none of the above.

The writers of the film were Damian Shannon and Mark Swift who previously penned 2003's disasterous Freddy vs. Jason. They've said in interviews they learned their lessons from the mistakes they made on that film. I'm curious what they thought those were. Just once I'd like to see a horror movie written by first-class screenwriters and a great director and see what we'd get. And it would have to be fun. Actually maybe a lesser director so the films wouldn't look so much like slickly made music videos.

These types of movies have grown by leaps and bounds technically but so what? That approach doesn't HELP a horror movie, especially if there's no suspense or story. If that were to happen perhaps the horror genre would be able to shake the terrible (and somewhat deserving) stigma it's currently stained with. Instead, a sequel to this is being planned and we have A Nightmare on Elm Street remake to dread also. That it stars Jackie Earle Haley as Krueger makes me feel a little better but not much. The most disappointing aspect to the Friday the 13th reboot is that it's completely indistinguishable from every other horror remake. This is successful only in reigniting a renewed interest and appreciation in the original films. It turns out they were much better than we thought.

The Best Picture Field Expands to 10 Nominees: Pros and Cons

Well, I definitely didn't expect to be talking about next year's Oscars this early that's for sure. In what has to be considered fairly shocking news, last week outgoing Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences President Sid Ganis announced that the 82nd Academy Awards will feature 10 Best Picture nominees instead of 5, ending a six decade long tradition. The goal is to get the Oscars to return to its old Hollywood roots, harkening back to 1939 when Gone with the Wind, The Wizard of Oz, Mr. Smith Goes to Washington and Stagecoach all competed for Best Picture or in 1943 when Casablanca beat out nine other nominees to win the big prize. Why do I have the feeling 2009 won't be that kind of year? Just a guess. In other words, it's a rare admission of guilt from the Academy that the the voting body don't have a clue what they're doing and are completely out of touch with the mainstream moviegoing public.

We knew the 2008 Oscar contenders were bad, but apparently they were so bad that even the Academy President felt the need to apologize for it. I thought 3 of the 5 Best Picture contenders last year were worthy, but in a field so weak, that's not much of an accomplishment. It's also unforgivable to nominate safe highbrow fare no one went to see when better options were available. Now that viewers have fled the Oscar presentation in droves (despite a much livelier telecast this year) and studios have lost money, they're finally taking some action. But does expanding the number of nominees for Best Picture solve that problem? I guess it depends who you ask. Like any proposed solution, there are good and bad aspects to consider.

Pros
- At least they did SOMETHING and finally acknowledged there's a serious problem here in how the public views the Oscars. A change was desperately needed and long overdue. It's a first step.

-With 10 nominees the focus now shifts from what will be nominated to WHAT WILL WIN. It's a more open race now. The eventual winner is now legitimately in doubt for once.

- With more films nominated the studios stand to make more money. Good for them I guess.

- Score another one for The Dark Knight. It's snub was so awful that the Academy is not only apologizing for it, but are revamping their Best Picture nomination policy. Even Ganis admitted in the press conference that we wouldn't be having this discussion if Nolan's film had made it in ("I would not be telling you the truth if I said the words 'Dark Knight' did not come up"). The irony here is that in not getting nominated the film has earned an honor higher than that. Its legacy is sealed.

- A chance for mainstream, more crowd pleasing fare to sneak in. You know, movies PEOPLE ACTUALLY GO TO SEE. The idea of Star Trek or The Hangover getting a Best Picture nod isn't so far fetched anymore. Could a Judd Apatow comedy be nominated? It's actually a real possibility.

- Animated and foreign films that have been unfairly pushed off to the sidelines in their own categories now stand a much better chance of picking up a nomination. Pixar fans can rejoice.

-Smaller, independent films that are dark horses or considered "on the bubble" (like last year's Rachel Getting Married and The Wrestler) now can potentially get some much needed attention and recognition.

- More people may watch the broadcast now that they have a vested interest in seeing if their favorite movie wins. That also translates into more box office dollars.

-Since anything can happen now, THIS MOVIE is officially in play as a contender (sorry, just couldn't resist).

-With more nominees the chances of the Academy choosing one of their usual stuffy selections like Gladiator, A Beautiful Mind, or Crash as the winner is minimized.

-The Academy may finally be forced to look further back than October in selecting the nominees for a change.

-It shakes things up. Just think how much more interesting the nominations could be.

Cons
- Here's an idea: Instead of increasing the number of nominees, how about actually PICKING THE RIGHT 5 FILMS for a change. The problem has nothing to do with the number of slots, but the people voting. This doesn't address the issue.

-There were barely 5 great films in '08 and now they're going to try and find 10. Good luck. And if they couldn't even get those 5 right just imagine the damage they could do now. Don't be shocked when you see Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen and Paul Blart: Mall Cop among the nominees next year. This could turn the Oscars into The People's Choice or MTV Movie Awards.

-It's just a shallow attempt to drive up ratings and rake in cash.

- The Best Picture Oscar is devalued having this many films competing for it. A win now means nothing.

- For Zodiac, Into the Wild, The Dark Knight and tons of other films unfairly snubbed from the past six decades, it's too late.

- Just imagine how long the show will be NOW.

- There are still only 5 Best Director nominees which means the other 5 nominees for Best Picture could just be window dressing.

- Why 10? Isn't doubling the nominees a bit of an overreaction? 6 or 7 seems like it would have been perfect.

- The number has changed but the voters' tastes probably haven't. They could use the extra five slots to reward more films like The Reader.

- Instead of voters reaching back in the year to consider more titles, studios could try to cram more releases into the October-December window in hopes of getting a nomination. If you thought last season was bad this one could turn into a living hell.

-The Best Animated and Foreign Film categories still exist so voters can still shut those out, regardless of how many more slots there are to fill. This means the debate as to whether Up will be nominated is set to get even more heated (shoot me now please).

-With more films competing for a nomination studios will have to spend more money on promotion and campaigning. Given we're in a recession, I'm sure they're thrilled about that, especially if they don't see a return on their investment.

- What does it say about the Academy and their decision making skills through the years that such drastic changes were necessary?

Verdict:
The final tally is 13 to 12 with the cons coming out on top. A close call. As of now, I think it's a boneheaded move that minimizes the award. Based on their history, I don't trust the voters to pick the most deserving films and this doesn't change that, no matter how many they nominate. But what we really should do is reserve judgment until around October and November when we have a clearer picture of the Oscar landscape. All I know right now is that it's going to be a very intriguing (if not horrifying) morning when they announce the Best Picture nominees--ALL 10 OF THEM.

'80's Classics: Lucas

★★★★★★★★★★★★ '80's Classic ★★★★★★★★★★★★

Whenever someone tells me the 1980's were a terrible decade for movies I get really pissed. To some that may seem like an overreaction, especially when you take into account that film is such a subjective topic that lends itself to widely differing opinions across the board. A popular one is that the '80's are far inferior to the '70's, which is frequently referred to as the new "Golden Age" of cinema. Whatever.

I get the argument. The '70's decade were full of creatively groundbreaking works that revolutionized how many view movies. Yet strangely I feel a sort of emotional detachment from the work of that decade. I admire the technical proficiency and when I'm trying to sound like a elitist film critic instead of a movie fan I might tell people I think that decade is the greatest, but if I'm hosting a movie party and can only screen films from one decade, I know which one I'm choosing. And it sure as hell isn't the 1970's. After all, I said a party NOT a film class. The films from the '70's may have earned my respect, but the ones from the '80's have my unconditional love.

It isn't often that I'm actually inspired by film criticism I've read but a very personal and moving piece went up recently at The House Next Door celebrating one of my favorite of all '80's films, The Karate Kid. That coincided with Movie Geeks United's fantastic special on the Summer of '84. What I took out of both was that for anyone who was lucky enough to live through the films of that decade (whether it be as a little kid, teenager or adult) you were part of an exclusive club. It's so cool and unless you were there you just can't fully grasp what those movies mean to us. It's impossible. Much like it might be impossible for me to understand what Taxi Driver or Jaws means to someone older who went to see it on opening day.

When you live through it and remember where you were when you first saw it, who you were with, and the reaction you had it becomes more than a movie. It's an experience. And over time it becomes harder and harder to separate the two. I have a theory that those films that make that special connection are the ones that end up on people's Top 10's. For me, the '80's are full of them, why is why I consider it the best decade for film, regardless of what scholars, critics, or experts think.

In choosing my first '80's film to write about the choice was easy because it's a movie that's always been in my conciousness for the past 20 years or so, often popping up in my mind when I least expect it, and calling me back time and time again. It means so much to me that hesitated writing about it because that it almost feels like a special secret I shouldn't be letting anyone else in on. Few movies have impacted me as deeply on an emotional level and the strong reaction it gets from me today is the same one I had as a kid. The difference is that now I can tell you exactly why.

The film is 1986's Lucas and it's not really a "teen movie, " despite always being lumped in with the likes of The Breakfast Club, Pretty in Pink, Say Anything, and Fast Times at Ridgemont High. Maybe the studio just needed a familiar reference point to make audiences feel better about going to see it when it was released. It didn't work. No one went to see it and to this day, despite accumulating a small cult following, it's still gone relatively unknown and unseen by far too many.

Roger Ebert seemed to be the only film critic in America who seemed to understand, rightfully giving it a spot on his top ten of 1986. It's times like that where I really appreciate what an advocate and invaluable voice he can be, championing an underseen, horrifically underrated and criminally mismarketed movie that no one even gave the time of day. His four-star review, where he went as far as to compare it to The 400 Blows, will always be one of my favorites. He wasn't overstating his case either. While avoiding the trappings of a teen movie, it'll certainly work as one if you're in the mood to view it that way. And going beyond being one of the best films of the '80's, it holds up to this day as one of the most honest films about growing up ever made.

After some checking up I re-discovered that Platoon was awarded Best Picture in '86. Fair enough, but still systemic of the Academy's long running policy of rewarding an important topics or issues rather than deserving films, which has continued up to this day. Movies destined to be respected, but never loved. The wrong Charlie Sheen movie won that year. The choice reflects their poor choices throughout the decade, no doubt contributing to the 1980's unfair reputation. There were plenty of great films. It just so happens the Academy didn't nominate any of them. Don't believe me? These were the Best Picture nominees for 1984:

Amadeus
Places in the Heart
The Killing Fields
A Passage to India
A Soldier's Story

Have you fallen asleep yet? Of those you could argue that only Amadeus (the eventual winner) and The Killing Fields were the slightest bit deserving. Now, THESE COULD HAVE BEEN THE BEST PICTURE NOMINEES FOR 1984:

Gremlins
The Goonies
The Karate Kid
Ghostbusters
Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom

I get chills just thinking about that lineup. And have no worries because if you're not completely satisfied with that you can just insert This is Spinal Tap, Beverly Hills Cop, The Terminator, Blood Simple, The Adventures of Buckaroo Bonzai, The Neverending Story, The Last Starfighter, The Natural, Paris Texas, Police Academy, Purple Rain, Revenge of the Nerds, Starman or Top Secret! into any one of those five slots. Name a year from the '70's more fun than that. And I thought they screwed up the 2008 nominations. But I guess given the Academy's recent shocking announcement that the Best Picture field will now be expanded to ten nominees, these arguments (for better or worse) will soon become a moot point.

I recently had to compile a list of 2008's best films and when you re-watch a movie like Lucas you start to realize that it is sometimes true that they don't make them like they used to. I'm not sure a movie about young people that's this smart could be released today, especially considering it didn't entice audiences even then. Less discerning eyes could view the movie as a triumph of the underdog. I've even heard it described as "sweet." But anyone who looks closer would see that the ending, besides being far from happy, could also be construed as unbearably sad and hopeless. Like the entire film, it's punctuated with the pangs of adolescence and digs up childhood memories many of us would rather leave behind, yet also do anything to revisit.

You could almost get angry watching the film because it's so set in our minds which characters we want to root for and why. Then writer/director David Seltzer pulls the rug out from under us changing all the questions when we think we knew the answers, eventually forcing us to concede that he might know more about growing up than we do. It'a great example of how a single screenwriting decision (and one that hasn't been been repeated before or since in this genre) can turn a great film into something much more, making it every bit as potent now as in '86, regardless of the viewer's age. No star ratings here at the risk of trivializing or simplifying what for me is an experience rather than a movie, although be warned that HEAVY SPOILERS FOLLOW.

Lucas (Corey Haim) is a bright but very nerdy and socially awkward 14-year-old who spends his summer catching insects and mowing lawns for cash. This changes when one day he meets Maggie (Kerri Green), a new girl in town a couple of years older than he. Quickly they become friends and a few weeks before school starts are in each others company constantly, a new exciting experience for a loner like Lucas, who's always struggled with social interactions. Then reality sets in. School starts and Lucas must come to grips not only with his growing feelings for Maggie, but her emerging popularity amongst the "popular kids" that bully and torment him daily. When she becomes a cheerleader (which he constantly refers to as "superficial") and starts dating Cappie (Sheen), the star football player, jealousy overtakes him and he begins lashing out. He can feel her slipping away. Right away, all the cards are laid out on the table for your typical '80's teen movie. "The geek" tries to win "the girl" from "the jock." Geek gets girl. End of story. But Seltzer throws a hatchet into that well-worn screenwriting gameplan, twisting our feelings and emotions into knots as we watch.

We're all predisposed to cheer Lucas on in his quest to win Maggie's affections. After all, he's a great kid who obviously cares about her a great deal. He deserves to be happy. He's the underdog. Cappie has to be a jerk...right? He's a jock. He's on the football team. Only, Cappie isn't a jerk at all. But beyond just not being a jerk he's actually a great guy. So great that he's the only person who's ever stood up for Lucas, never forgetting he was the kid who helped him with his homework every day when he was sick so he wouldn't have to repeat a year of school. But how great a guy Cappie is means little to Lucas. If anything, it just makes him angrier.

Sheen may be easy to dislike these days but you wouldn't know it here. This is one of his best roles and as much as I've tried so many times to hate this character every time I watch the film his performance just won't let me. But that's not the aspect of this story that rips me apart on each viewing. It's the reaction of Maggie and Cappie when they understand what's happening. Their first concern is Lucas. You get the impression that if they really could stop what's happening between them they would. They feel absolutely terrible. As terrible as we think we feel for this kid, they feel worse. And when they reach out and legitimately try to help him get through this and he shames them you can almost feel your allegiance shifting. When Lucas starts to whine, pout and act out you still feel for him, but a whole lot less which hits us with the cold, harsh reality that this isn't anyone's fault. When you're young this stuff happens and it isn't painted in black or white or right or wrong or geek or jock. It's just life and part of growing up. And it hurts.

Arguably the film's most memorable scene is where Lucas flat-out asks Maggie why she doesn't feel the same way he does about her. Of course, she doesn't know. There's no explanation for things like that. But this is the first movie of its kind to ask that question, then bother to stick around for the answer. We start to to wonder whether maybe Lucas is being unfair in rejecting her friendship, which may not be as bad a consolation prize as he thinks it is. His immature reaction also has us questioning whether he's even really ready for Maggie. He's probably not. At least not yet. With his stubborn refusal to give in and misplaced, unearned sense of entitlement he isn't the innocent underdog you'd expect, which is a big reason why he's one of my favorite movie protagonists.

He's so self-involved that he fails to recognize that he's causing another character as much pain as he thinks Maggie is causing him. Winona Ryder (in her first screen role) plays Rina, an outcast with a crush of her own on Lucas, who hardly acknowledges her existence. Despite Ryder getting top billing on the DVD cover (an rather blatant attempt to capitalize on her later fame), it's a nothing part that doesn't amount to anything, which is exactly the point and why it's so perfect. While Cappie and Maggie worried about hurting Lucas, he never gave Rina's feelings a second thought. Seltzer brilliantly places her as far off our radar as his.

Like most '80's movies the stars in it went on to varying degrees of success, or lack thereof. I refuse to even acknowledge what's happened with Corey Haim. For me he'll always be frozen in time in this role and regardless of the direction his life and career took, nothing could overshadow the note perfect performance he gave here, one of the all-time best from a child actor. Someone needs to tie him and Sheen down and force them to watch this movie on endless repeat so theyd see just how a special a film they were a part of. If they were aware of that, and the unlimited potential they showed, maybe they wouldn't have made the decisions they did later. Kerri Green (who also co-starred in The Goonies) shows poise and grace far beyond her years as Maggie, but was never really heard from or seen again after this. But if those 100 minutes are all we're ever going to have from her, I'm fine with it. You can't reasonably ask for more. There are also a couple of "Before They Were Stars" cameos from Jeremy Piven and Courtney Thorne-Smith. Smith plays Cappie's ex-girlfriend while Piven actually has fairly large role as the school bully.

I've always gotten a kick out of those lists of "Movies That Make Guys Cry". I'm usually not a big crier during films and would probably have some difficulty coming up with ten, but when that now infamous "slow clap" starts in the hallway in the film's final scene, I just lose it. It's one of the few movie moments that really gets to me. And it's the rare instance where someone else could have the exact same emotional reaction to the scene, but for totally different reasons. I don't view the finale as happy at all. That I've heard some actually refer to it as "cliche" or "syrupy" is insane. Lucas doesn't get the girl. He still lives in a trailer with his alcoholic father. He's still a nerd who's unpopular at school. We have no clue whether his relationship with Rina will work out, that is if he even decides to explore a relationship with her. And if he does, he's kind of been forced to "settle." Not to mention he was almost pummeled to death and humiliated on the football field. Worse yet, years from now he'll be forced to look back on all this as one of those condescending "life lessons." Some happy ending that is. And that's why that slow clap at the end of the film means so much. Why it isn't a joke like in so many other movies. For a brief, fleeting moment Lucas has earned what he always wanted, but would never openly admit to: RESPECT. It's a minor, but importantly realistic victory in a movie that specializes in understatement.

It would have been easy for Seltzer to just cop out and give us the ending we all wanted to see. Instead, he's more interested in exploring why we'd even want to see that ending in the first place. It wouldn't be honest. This one hurts more, but then again, so does growing up. He slaps us across the face hard and lets us know this is real life, not reel life. The film's tagline is true. There is a little bit of Lucas in everyone. And because everyone watching of nearly any age will relate so closely to him, the story, and it's bittersweet ending, is even more affecting. Only a filmmaker with total insight into the human condition could craft a picture about young people this observant.

Some movies these days are so stupid you wonder if the people who wrote them have ever lived a day in their life or experienced any kind of basic emotion. Seltzer never really did anything again after this. I don't blame him. If I made this movie I would have retired also. He probably felt there was nothing else left to say. And he's right. There isn't. Other films in this genre have since tried and failed miserably. It's a lot deeper and more complex than most adult dramas. But if you want to watch it purely for nostalgia purposes you'll find it won't disappoint in that department either. Either way, the achievement is the same. A quintessential '80's movie in the best way, Lucas has stood the test of time to emerge as one of the decade's most underrated films.

The 10 Best Films of 2008

First off, my apologies to 2007. I had previously stated that year wasn't a great one for films. How wrong I was. What do Into The Wild, There Will Be Blood, Zodiac, I'm Not There and Michael Clayton all have common? Well, they're all better than every single film on the list you're about to read. And in retrospect any year that finds No Country For Old Men, Grindhouse, The Lookout and The Mist all MISSING my top ten has to be considered pretty impressive. Even throwaway guilty pleasures like Alpha Dog and Smokin' Aces left a more indelible print than could have reasonably been expected. 2008, on the other hand, truly was a bad year and it's unlikely my opinion on that will change anytime soon. Compiling a list of the finest cinematic endeavors in a year this unfulfilling was a challenge.

It was also a year where I massively overpraised so many undeserving films that if there were such a thing as a critic's license, mine should have been revoked. I've since learned my lesson. In my defense though a critic is almost forced to give an impulsive response to a picture upon a single viewing without taking into account how the film will age in your mind after that viewing or hold up on repeated ones. So, AT THE TIME the analysis was right on the money. Now...not so much. Obviously, problems arise when you revisit certain films and realize they were far less than they first appeared.

Waiting until June to compile the list had a devastating effect for many of the movies that made the cut and made this process substantially more interesting. Is it really too much to ask that a movie holds up on a second or third viewing months later? Apparently so. Picking the top film was much easier than expected. All I had to do is watch many of these movies again and see them drop like flies. Only one survived. After years of doing this I think I've finally figured out the secret formula to determining the year's best film. I ask myself the following questions:

1. Is it a feat that can be duplicated? (if it is, chances are it isn't the year's best)
2. Can I watch it over and over again, discovering something new on each viewing?
3. Do I want to watch it RIGHT NOW? (regardless of the mood I'm in)
4. How difficult was it to execute?
5. Does it say something, meaningful, lasting and important?

Obviously, there's some wiggle room with those questions but they succeed in being objective, while still taking personal preference into account. Just reading them gives a major hint what that movie is this year. The truth is 2008 is likely to be remembered more for great performances than films. Sean Penn in the otherwise sour Milk. Micky Rourke's career resurrection in The Wrestler. Clint Eastwood in Gran Torino. And of course, you know who...in you know what. Those performances will stay with us. The films probably won't. I kept waiting for something brilliant to come out of left field and reaffirm my love for movies. I waited. And waited. But nothing.

It was a year where even the #1 film on my list was a disappointment of sorts and fell short of reaching its full potential. I'm not at all surprised what that film is, so much as the tumultuous road it took to get there. It's a tainted victory, but a victory nonetheless. Taking all this into account I've gone with a slightly different approach this year in adding a "WHAT'S WRONG WITH IT?" section for each selection to reflect the creatively uneven output of the past year. These films will justifiably be praised, but not without measured criticism that reflect the discoveries I made on subsequent viewings (most of which were negative).

It's time to right some wrongs. And now the next time someone asks me why I own so few DVD's I can just show them a list of last year's theatrical releases because this just proves how difficult it is for a movie to hold up on a second viewing, much less a third or fourth, and to do it years (or in this case even months) down the line. If you dislike brutal honesty I suggest you stop reading now. These are the best films of the year...and I'm using the term "BEST" very loosely.

10. Definitely, Maybe (Director-Adam Brooks)
Crafting a smart and entertaining mainstream American romantic comedy is becoming a lost art. Depending on which day you get me on I'm either really proud or profoundly embarrassed to say I'm a fan of the "chick flick." This is a reminder that in the rare cases it's done really well there's no shame at all in enjoying one (even if you're a guy). A rom-com mystery that kind of plays like a feature length film version of How I Met Your Mother, there's genuine doubt as to the film's central question of maternity. And who would have guessed Ryan Reynolds could be this likable as a lead?

You actually care about the lives and personalities of all three of the women (played by Elizabeth Banks, Rachel Weisz and Isla Fisher) and anyone watching is bound to have a rooting interest in who he ends up with. Interestingly, I found my allegiance on that issue has shifted since the first viewing. There's no obvious "wrong choice," which is why Adam Brooks' underrated script works so well. The early to mid-90's setting (often under-represented in movies) only helps its cause. It's the kind of movie where you can just shut off your brain and have a great time.

What's Wrong With It?
Chalk it up to extremely low expectations but, surprisingly, not much other than it's too lightweight to be considered anything meaningful. It touches on some life issues, none of which you'll be contemplating long after the film ends. But this isn't that kind of movie, nor does it need to be. It's one of the best romantic comedies to come around recently, but if this were any other year it wouldn't be cracking the top 10.

9. Gran Torino (Director-Clint Eastwood)
While other dramas this year strained to find social relevance or force fed a preachy message down our throats, star and director Eastwood actually bothered to intelligently explore some real issues that speak about the world we live in now. And he did it in a way that didn't condescend to the audience or over-sympathize of the situation, which would have been an easy route to take given the difficult material.

As the tough-minded, racist, Korean War Vet Walt Kowalski who begrudgingly takes a shy Hmong teen (Bee Vang) under his wing , Clint never tries to get us to like him. Instead he plays Walt as a man so stubbornly set in his ways that we have no choice but to accept him as he is, at the same time acknowledging what a damn fool he is by acting the way he does. We're just waiting for him to catch on and when he does the film enters unexpected suburban Dirty Harry territory. I have to be careful in calling this a "drama" because the film has more laugh-out loud moments and situations than the past few Jim Carrey and Will Ferrell comedies combined. Clint does a lot more than just grunt and grimace through this, although there's still plenty of that if you're interested. We even get to hear him sing.

Nick Schenck's script walks a really fine line with the comic relief and it's destined to offend some, but Eastwood pulls it off. Christopher Carley is fantastic as the young priest who won't give up on Walt, when all signs say he should. I'd congratulate Eastwood for directing and producing two major films (this and Changeling) in the past year at almost 80 years old but there's one guy I don't want to get angry. So let's just say it's an impressive feat for someone any age.

What's Wrong With It?
Is it a comedy? A drama? A biting social satire? It's about a million things at once and while it's Eastwood's most interesting directorial effort since 1993's A Perfect World, it's all over the map in terms of what it's trying to be. Not to mention it's just plain strange and agitatingly uncomfortable at times. We know what Eastwood is going for, but when the xenophobic slurs are THAT FUNNY and delivered with such impeccable comic timing by Eastwood (I can't believe I just typed that) doesn't the message get muddled...just a little bit?

8. WALL-E (Director-Andrew Stanton)
The first time I saw Andrew Stanton's WALL-E, I was blown away. The second time, much less so. But I'll always have that initial viewing for when just a few hours after leaving the theater I thought I had witnessed the kind of magical movie (reminiscent of early Spielberg) that just can't ever be topped. Unfortunately, reality set in about a week later. You could argue Pixar bit off more than it could chew with some really deep material for a family film but that's preferable to condescending to your audience. While I don't know of any small child who could sit through it without getting restless, for fans of animation and Sci-Fi this was pretty much a cinematic dream come true.

What's Wrong With It?
I was SHOCKED how poorly this held up on a repeated viewing. So poorly that this went from being one of my favorites of the year to just barely making the list. Taking into account the film runs only 97 minutes, the story seemed to drag a little in the third act, making me wonder if those who claimed that Stanton couldn't deliver on the promise of its nearly silent opening 4o minutes may have been right. As "perfect" as all these recent Pixar movies seem to be and how everyone says they're breaking new ground, I have to ask why so many of them have a shelf life of a single viewing? And why do they FEEL so long despite barely clocking in at an hour and a half? While technically brilliant and emotionally satisfying, I'm starting to think they represent a "one and done" experience.

Is it possible that Pixar is just replicating the same movie over and over again with different characters but a similar recipe? It sure seems like it, although that's not such an insult when you consider how good they are at it. Their latest, Up, opened to predictably glowing reviews and massive box office, but I'm surprised just how little interest I have in seeing it. I'm Pixared out. Don't get me wrong though. Wall-E is easily one of the year's best and a tremendous film, just not nearly as tremendous as I originally thought.

7. Pineapple Express (Director-David Gordon Green)
Finally, the question is answered as to what would happen if a really gifted filmmaker "lowered" himself and decided to direct a stoner comedy. That filmmaker is David Gordon Green and in a year where nearly nothing met expectations the results are even better than we could have hoped. It's a buddy film. It's an 80's action movie. It's flat-out hilarious. Seth Rogen gives his most likable performance yet as slacking process server while James Franco's should-have-been-nominated supporting turn as the stoned out (but surprisingly good hearted) Saul shows us all how funny he was capable of being if just given the opportunity. Its final act accomplishes what 2007's Hot Fuzz did, but much better.

What's Wrong With It?
No matter how well executed it is, it's still just a really hilarious (if extremely well-made) stoner comedy. That's it.

6. In Bruges (Director-Martin McDonagh)
The most underrated film of the year. Actually, the ONLY underrated film of the year. I saw this the same week I saw The Dark Knight and just never got around to reviewing it, something I've regretted since. That's ironic because Irish playwright Martin McDonagh's debut feature about two hitmen (Brendan Gleeson and Colin Farrell) looking for redemption in the small, boring Belgium town of Bruges as they await their next job, stayed with me longer than so many other 2008 releases. I had literally no interest in seeing it but did so on the basis of universally glowing recommendations. They were right.

The Oscar-nominated ORIGINAL script (HOW THE FREAKIN' HELL DID THIS LOSE TO MILK!!!!?) is an example of great screenwriting at its very essence. I cared about every character. The dwarf. The girlfriend. Ralph Fiennes' brilliantly rendered hitman who hates his wife. Even the town of Bruges feels like a living, breathing character. But more than that, I felt sympathy for their situation. Earned sympathy. There's a code of morals and ethics...even among contracted killers. McDonagh and his actors somehow find the humanity in this. And that bell tower scene...wow.

The Oscars may have gotten it all wrong but the Hollywood Foreign Press got it right recognizing this as one of the year's best and rewarding Farrell, who gives the performance of his life here. Anyone doubting this guy's chops as an actor needs to see this movie right now. And anyone still questioning the power of voice over narration as a storytelling device will be blown away by the powerful monologue that closes the film, as its the best piece of screenwriting this year.

What's Wrong With It?
In a high compliment, there actually isn't much wrong with this picture. While this isn't so much a knock on the film per se, the crime/gangster genre has been revisited ad nauseam ever since Pulp Fiction was released in 1994. Did we really need another one of these? The film, as good as it is, is more an achievement in screenwriting than anything else and unfortunately just not big enough in scope or importance to rank anywhere near the top of this list.

5. Frost/Nixon (Director-Ron Howard)
Far from the stuffy Oscar bait it was promoted as, this was one of the most surprisingly taut and exciting pictures of 2008 and an intriguing look into the psyche of one of our most misunderstood historical figures. It's not that we were ever wrong about who Richard Nixon was or what he did, but I don't think we were ever quite sure exactly why he did it. The answer to the question is deeper and more complicated than it first appears and it's all contained in the Oscar nominated performance of Frank Langella as the disgraced former President and Michael Sheen as David Frost, the reporter who pushed him to the breaking point in a series of television interviews in the late '70's.

Adapting historical events to film is hard. Adapting them from a stage play might even be harder. The film's success is less dependent on Ron Howard's direction (which is fine but nothing special) than a complete embodiment of these men by the two actors. It's almost eery how as the story wears on Langella seems to transform himself physically and emotionally into the President to the point where we feel like we are watching Nixon by the final scene. Peter Morgan's script leaves us with the the feeling that these two almost needed each other in a way, wanting to take the other down to cleanse themselves of their own failures.

What's Wrong With It?
It's a history lesson. The more movies I see based on historical events the more I start to think that there won't ever be one that could top a year-end list (and I'd even go so far as to include Schindler's List in that club). Howard avoids the usual pitfalls of the genre and crafts an exciting piece of cinematic non-fiction but that we already know the outcome (and how little it yielded) hangs over the film like a dark cloud. We go to movies to escape from the real world, not immerse ourselves in a dramatic recreation of it. "Based on true events" is a tough label to shake.

4. The Wrestler (Director-Darren Aronofsky)
Welcome back Mickey Rourke. If years down the line no one remembers much from the last year in film (which is sadly a real possibility) they'll at least never forget Rourke's eerily personal and emotionally scarred portrayal of washed-up '80's wrestling superstar Randy "The Ram" Robinson. Marisa Tomei and Evan Rachel Wood shine, but Rourke is this movie. The thought that Nicolas Cage could have actually been cast in the title role instead is a scary possibility not even worth contemplating. We know who was born to play Ram. Aronofsky (in his most emotionally effective film to date) pulls back the curtain to show us how the wrestling business can chew up and spit out its performers and how for one of them leaving it is more painful than staying in, even if it could cost him his life.

The infamous "deli scene" is either my favorite or least favorite movie moment of the year, depending on whether you enjoy watching people struggling to survive in the most uncomfortable social situations imaginable. The saddest part of that scene isn't how it ends, but that Ram was actually really good at that job and almost seemed to enjoy it up until that point. How he translated his skills as a performer to the deli counter. It makes you wonder what else he could have been good at. If scenes like that don't win you Oscars, what does? Sorry Sean but that statue belongs to Mickey.

What's Wrong With It?
It's so depressing you'll want to hang yourself after the credits roll. Rourke's performance curbs a lot of that but if a movie is going to be this dark it better be full of huge ideas and big issues to think about when it's over. There really aren't any here. It's pretty cut and dry and doesn't lend itself to any kind of deep analysis. The film is primarily a showcase for Rourke, even though he does an incredible job in making it feel like it isn't. Looking back, Tomei's performance isn't the slightest bit Oscar-worthy. Also, while the film is technically superb, Aronofsky doesn't break new ground as the low budget indie faux-documentary style has been beaten into submission (cheap pun I know) by other films

Maybe it's just the wrestling fan in me talking but I can't help but think this movie was released about a decade too late, which could explain why it didn't quite strike the mainstream chord it should have. And while it brought some much needed attention to what wrestlers really do and sacrifice, it did so at the cost of reinforcing the worst stereotypes people have about professional wrestling.

3. Slumdog Millionaire (Director-Danny Boyle)
Last year's Best Picture Oscar winner about a peasant from the slums of Mumbai who goes on to win the Indian version of Who Wants to be a Millionaire? and find his lost love is a tale of two movies. The one Danny Boyle actually made and the one the media and the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences want to believe that he made because it fits so nicely into their perfectly shaped box of what crowd-pleasing, inoffensive entertainment is supposed to be. It's both the year's most overrated and underrated film at the same time. Simon Beaufoy's script (adapted from Vikas Swarup's novel, "Q&A") is ingenious in how it seamlessly shifts back and forth through flashbacks to reveal how 18-year-old Jamal (Dev Patel) knew the answers to all those questions and dissenters of the screenplay's supposedly "manipulative" structure forget that all the queries on a show like that are dependent on someone just simply paying attention to everything that's around them.

Though it didn't garner a single acting nomination, the performances are universally strong across the board with Anil Kapoor's work as the arrogant host going criminally overlooked by nearly everyone. Frieda Pinto does a good enough job looking pretty and seeming just unattainable enough. The best edited and scored film on this list by a landslide. That train sequence (set to M.I.A.'s "Paper Planes") is one for the vault. And regardless of what's been said everywhere it's not the fluffy "feel-good movie of the year." There's a lot more substance to it than that...I think.

What's Wrong With It?
When I watched this a second time I found myself staring at my watch waiting for key events to happen and when they did, the emotional reaction I had the first time was absent. I'd be curious to know if anyone else tried that and had the exact same "been there, done that" response I did. This tells me the script is primarily dependent on surprises, revelations and plot turns rather than real emotional truth. The movie seemed more mechanical and choreographed to me the second time, making me wonder if there is some truth in those plot manipulation claims.

And don't even get me started on the film being referred to as the "Obama of the Best Picture nominees," or worse yet, that we should all just embrace it because we're in a recession. Sure, it won the Best Picture Oscar...but FOR ALL THE WRONG REASONS. It's been just a few months and it already hasn't aged well. Unfortunately, the only thing people are talking about now in regards to the film are what prices the child stars are going for and how they can further be exploited.

2. The Curious Case of Benjamin Button (Director-David Fincher)
Just for the record, as a self-professed Fincher fanatic, here's where I stand: Better than Alien 3, Se7en and Panic Room. Worse than The Game (what isn't?), Fight Club and Zodiac. So no, despite my initail glowing overreaction this isn't going to be remembered as our greatest living director's masterwork. But I love it and it's a hell of a lot better than it's been given credit for. Haters of the film could only keep coming back to one argument: It reminded them of Forrest Gump. That's pretty weak. As if being reminded of that great film is a capital offense. It's an obvious shot at screenwriter Eric Roth, who penned both, and I can kind of see where they're coming from....to a point. Luckily the Academy got wise for once and ignored all of them, showering the film with 13 nominations. Their motivations behind that may be suspect as usual, but when it comes to rewarding the long overdue Fincher, I'll take it.

By taking what COULD HAVE BEEN another Forrest Gump in the hands of anyone else and making it darker and sadder, Fincher turns a movie about life into one about death. A protagonist aging backwards should be a showy gimmick and the film could have easily collapsed under the weight of its groundbreaking digital effects but because of Fincher's vision (and the nuanced performances of Brad Pitt and Cate Blanchett) it becomes something much more. For proof of just how much more, read F. Scott Fitzgerald's short story from which its based and marvel at how he and Roth took a somewhat meager and unformed conceit and turned it into an epic journey. Why does everyone hate this film so much?

What's Wrong With It?
Not nearly as much as you've heard. Roth's script is the weak link here though. The film so technically well made that at times it's painfully obvious that Fincher's skills are far above some of the trivial circumstances presented in the screenplay (i.e. the sea boat captain stuff). While this had one of the better second viewings on the list I couldn't help but think I was completing a homework assignment while watching it just from the sheer density of the project. Movies today are just too long and we can probably add this to the long list of films that would be greatly improved by cutting just 15 or 20 minutes.

When Benjamin and Daisy end up "meeting in the middle" and we head into the brilliant final hour the film soars to heights so high that the earlier portions can't help but be damaged in comparison. Because we expect nothing less than perfection from Fincher each time out he'll always be in competition with himself, forcing us to compare this to his previous output. Such a comparison does this movie no favors. Despite these issues I desperately wanted to put this in the #1 spot, but doing so would be an endorsement of my favorite director's resume rather the actual film.

1. The Dark Knight (Director-Christopher Nolan)
It's overlong. Some of the action scenes are sloppily edited. The plot's too convoluted. Bale's performance is just adequate. It didn't meet the massive expectations. And, sorry, it's no masterpiece. So what is it about Nolan's film that sets it a league apart from every other movie released this year? It has just as many flaws as any other film on this list, but with one key difference: It's flaws MAKE IT A MORE INTERESTING FILM and add to the overall experience. They're the result of a filmmaker's reach exceeding his grasp in a brave attempt to give us something we've never seen before. For the most part he succeeded. Nolan should take a bow because he crafted the only film this year that gains in power with each viewing and the first movie in over ten years to top my list that didn't earn four stars from me when I saw it initially. Go figure. It was just that kind of year. Truthfully, after re-watching all the films on this list, I'm still not sure if any of them are deserving of four stars (as silly as that whole rating system is anyway).

In an unfortunate circumstance, when I saw The Dark Knight last summer it ended up being the single worst theater going experience of my life. I doubted the film could ever recover. But recover it did...and then some. The flaws I saw the first time haven't gone away exactly. They just mean less in the overall scheme of things. I've accepted that I'll never love this film as much as everyone else, but there's no question it was the most ambitious and important achievement of the year and a landscape changer. For a moment in July, 2008 that barrier separating the critical from the commercial briefly disappeared for the first time since the release of Titanic in 1997. Everyone was a part of something, regardless of race, age or gender. When I think back on all the most memorable film moments from 2008, all of them can be found in Nolan's film (including the one above).

For a while, even while my appreciation for the somewhat messy, overly ambitious film increased, I was still unsure whether it was really "robbed" of a Best Picture nomination. Watching the actual telecast I made up my mind. It was. Flaws and all, this was still a better movie than the other nominees. But one Oscar it should have never been up for is Best Editing because this movie is a great example of how lost time in the editing booth can stop a great film from being a masterpiece. Questionable choices in this area still prevent me from being on board like I want to be and I still say the movie doesn't really get going until the corpse of that crook dangles outside the Gotham Mayor's window (which still caused me to jump even on a fourth viewing).

Most feel the third act involving D.A. Harvey Dent's transformation into Two-Face is what should have been left on the cutting room floor or saved for another film, but I don't completely agree. There's too much over-explanatory mob focus in the first hour that could have easily been given the ax instead. Besides, it's hard to argue less screen time for Aaron Eckhart who leaves painful memories of Tommy Lee Jones in the dust.

What amazed me most were the surprises. The fate of the Joker. Of Rachel. Of Harvey. Of Jim Gordon. Writers Jonathan Nolan and David S. Goyer subverted all expectations of how we thought things would go down. And who could have guessed Gary Oldman would have given us that much in what was just expected to be a minor, throwaway role? His delivery of that speech at the end? Chills. Gyllenhaal for Holmes? A fair trade, but a much narrower victory for Maggie than anyone predicted.

You can't discount the role Heath Ledger's death played in the prism through which we view the film. To do that would be flat-out denial. So would be denying that his Oscar winning portrayal was worthy of all the hype accompanying it, regardless of the tragic circumstances. This is not one of the decade's best films. Not even close. But few performances this decade, supporting or otherwise, were as powerful and demonic as Ledger's. It was the one aspect that turned out better than anticipated, if that's possible.

Usually I'm not a huge fan of superhero movies, which is a good thing since this isn't one. Nolan directed a crime drama played completely straight and stripped of all the usual conventions associated with the genre. Hopefully we do get a sequel because I think he's capable of crafting something even better than this. Yet at the same time I'll admit to being kind of curious as to the direction another filmmaker could take the franchise. Now almost a full year removed from its release The Dark Knight plays as well as ever. It isn't perfect but it is groundbreaking, reaching higher and accomplishing more than any other film in a weak year.

Top 5 Reasons G.I. Joe: The Rise of Cobra Seems Destined to Suck

I usually can't stand it when people judge something before they've even seen it. But sometimes...you just can't help yourself. Sometimes, you just get this "feeling" based on posters, trailers, TV spots, word of mouth or what have you that a certain movie is destined to fail. That all the wrong decisions were made even before the cameras started rolling. You want to approach it with an open mind but the warning signs are all there, too glaring to ignore. G.I. Joe: The Rise of Cobra is such a film. I'm not among the many who seem to feel making a G.I. Joe movie is a bad idea. Quite the opposite. I think it's a fantastic one with loads of potential. If anything, I'm shocked it took this long for it to happen. And that's why the direction it looks like they've taken with the material is so disappointing.

When Michael Bay's Transformers opened two years ago I kept my mouth shut. I wasn't a big fan of the cartoon as a kid, didn't collect the toys, so I couldn't have cared less what Bay did with it. But there were a lot of hardcore fans who did and I appreciated where they were coming from and how passionate they were that the cartoon they grew up on was done justice on the big screen. For all the criticism Bay took and still takes, when push came to shove, he delivered a film that was for the most part true to the source material, with certain understandable changes made to appeal to mainstream audiences unfamiliar with the toyline or cartoon. Some hated the movie, but most of them hate all Bay movies anyway and had zero interest in seeing a Transformers feature film in the first place. Bottom line: He came through.

G.I. Joe is a different story for me. I literally grew up on it to the point that a couple of years ago I browsed through a guide that prices old figures and discovered that had I kept everything that was listed, I'd probably be a millionaire right now. Since the project was announced I've been watching it VERY carefully and if this doesn't work out I'm going to have to take it a little personally.

If you can get past the movie's clunky, over-explanatory title (almost as bad as calling a movie X-Men Origins: Wolverine) there are other much bigger issues facing this seemingly doomed film. The only bright side here is that at least the casting doesn't appear to be horrific. It's mostly uninspired and lazy, but they could have done worse. I find it hilarious that diehards have been complaining about the casting of Joseph Gordon-Levitt as Cobra Commander on the silly basis that's he's "too young," especially considering this is an ORIGIN story and he'll be under a mask for the majority of the picture. Little do they know he's the only hope this movie has at succeeding provided he's given a story arc that takes full advantage of his talent (which is a real long shot).

As for Sienna Miller as the Baroness, you could have dyed any actress's hair black, stuck some glasses on her and it would have worked. As such, I suspect Miller should do fine. This isn't Shakespeare. Dennis Quaid looks like a complete fool in this costume but in theory he makes sense for General Hawk. That I'm completely unfamiliar with the actor playing Destro (Christopher Eccleston) might be a good thing. Channing Tatum (as Duke) and Marlon Wayans (as Ripcord) are the lazy, uninspired choices I'm referring to. And I'm confused as to why the minor character of Ripcord is even heavily featured in the film when better options were available. That said, if the problems below are any indication there isn't anything any actor or actress could do to salvage the film. You're probably wondering why I'm listing ONLY 5 reasons this movie looks like it will suck. What can I say? I'm feeling kind.

1. It's directed by Stephen Sommers. Deep Rising. The Mummy. The Mummy. Van Helsing. I'm not doubting that's the resume of someone capable of helming a top-tier summer tentpole franchise, but I am saying that G.I. Joe shouldn't feel like it is. Sometimes the simplest explanation works: If the director is bad, the film will be. Shouldn't we have learned that lesson already from Terminator Salvation?

2. An over-reliance on unconvincing CGI and digital effects, which even if they were done well, shouldn't be showcased to this extent. It's not a franchise like Transformers, that needs to be driven completely on huge visual effects and explosions. Just watch this trailer...if you can. It's painful.



3. It takes place in the future. Huh? I thought this was G.I. Joe, not Blade Runner. I wonder how many people always envisoned this movie taking place in a futuristic society. I'm guessing not many, even those who aren't fans. They should have set it during World War II. Just the thought of that opens up all sorts of intriguing possibilities.

4. They made it your typical superhero/fantasy movie. Tatum has described the film as "Mission Impossible meets Transformers meets X-Men." Sadly, I fear that's accurate. If it is, that's a great reason to stay home on August 7 and rent the 1987 animated feature instead. Ever since The Dark Knight was released last year there was rampant theorizing as to which franchises could be "Nolanized" and given a darker, more reality based treatment akin to that film. For most it just wouldn't fit. For G.I. Joe that approach would work.

They should have approached this as a war film and played it completely straight. I'm not saying it should be an R-rated Saving Private Ryan or The Thin Red Line, but it can be fun AND still be taken seriously. Too bad the studios are wusses and refuse to release any war film during a time of war, unless it pushes a preachy liberal agenda. Just look at this rendering of what Cobra Commander is supposed to look like and tell me this material doesn't scream out for a darker treatment.

5. The posters. Have you ever seen worse promotional artwork for a movie? It's like they didn't even care. Besides confirming the feeling that they captured the wrong tone, it's ugly and doesn't make you want to see the movie unless you had a gun to your head. All the characters look exactly the same, have no identifiable visual characteristics and could have very well stepped out of any generic superhero of the month lineup. And I hope you like black spandex and tight leather. The only two characters it looks like they didn't completely screw up were Snake Eyes and Storm Shadow (pictured above), but they were easy. At risk of sounding like a whiny fanboy, if the original costumes were fine, why change them?

Why am I wasting my time analyzing a movie I haven't seen? Because the folks at Paramount apparently couldn't be bothered to. I never thought I'd ever actually agree with the infamous Ben Lyons, but when he recently said that this movie doesn't look like it will capture the "heart and soul" of the toys or original cartoon it pains me to admit he's completely right. Hopefully, I'm wrong. Nothing would make me happier. If not, and it still does well commercially (as bad movies tend to these days), they may have another chance down the line to fix any problems. Until then, I'll be crossing my fingers that my review for G.I. Joe: The Rise of Cobra ends up being a letter of apology to Mr. Sommers.