Favorite Movies of 2009

1. Inglorious Basterds (Quentin Tarantino). When I first saw it, I wasn't sure if the whole movie added up to the sum of its parts. On a second viewing, I was convinced. Someday, it may even replace "Pulp Fiction" as my favorite Tarantino flick. As many others have said, Christoph Waltz is just amazing as Hans Landa, and the opening sequence where Landa interviews a simple French farmer is one of Tarantino's greatest accomplishments. The moment when Landa drops the pretense and through just a change of expression reveals all of the evil beneath is breathtaking. And then there's the underground tavern scene - I could watch that one all night, and never get tired of it. And let's give Brad Pitt his due - he's pretty damned good.

2. Moon (Duncan Jones). The directorial debut of Duncan Jones, until now best known as the son of David Bowie. A quiet, mesmerizing film that demonstrates you can still do science fiction on film without a lot of space battles and explosions. For a long time I've waited for a breakthrough performance by Sam Rockwell. I'm not sure if enough people saw this to make this the one, but I hope so.

3. The Hurt Locker (Kathryn Bigelow). An amazing achievement, simply for proving that it is possible to make a film about the war in Iraq that is apolitical. Almost unbearably suspenseful, with a terrific leading performance by Jeremy Renner. Great cameos by Guy Pearce and Ralph Fiennes.

4. Star Trek (J.J. Abrams). I wouldn't have thought it was possible, but Abrams indeed pulled off the neat trick of reinventing the "Trek" universe so that anything can happen now, and it will be OK.

5. District 9 (Neill Blommkamp). Particularly the first half, when it sticks to the "faux documentary" approach. Sharlto Copley is strikingly good as the lead.

6. Public Enemies (Michael Mann). Johnny Depp was great, but my favorite performance in the movie was Stephen Lang's.

7. The Men Who Stare at Goats (Grant Heslov). Perhaps not as good as it could have been, but there's no arguing that Clooney, Bridges and McGregor were great in it.

8. Watchmen (Zack Snyder). Only Jackie Earle Haley really matches the intensity of his character (and the casting of Ozymandias nearly ruined it for me), but I'll stick with what I said right after I saw it - this was probably the best Watchmen movie that could have been made.

I haven't seen any of the holiday releases, so we'll save a couple of spots for them.

Great and good movies I saw for the first time in 2009:

"Ratatouille" - Brad Bird is a genius. I never dreamed that this would be so good - nearly as good as "The Incredibles."

"Zodiac" - Like I said when I saw it: if you were 9 years old and living in Northern California in 1969, believe me, you knew all about the Zodiac killer. And this brought it all back.

"No Country for Old Men" - Javier Bardem deserved all the kudos, but I thought Josh Brolin was just as good.

"There Will Be Blood" - Even though there was a bit of "master thespian" in Daniel Day-Lewis' performance, that didn't make it any less compelling. And until the last 30 minutes, the film-making was as good as it gets. But I didn't like Paul Dano one bit.

"American Gangster" - A nice companion piece to "Prince of the City." Again, a nice supporting turn from Josh Brolin.

"The Wrestler" - OK, I've made up my mind: Rourke was better than Penn. And I'm sorry, but Bruce Springsteen got robbed by the Academy.

"Milk" - Penn was good, but there's a part of me that thinks James Franco and Josh Brolin (again!) were even better.

"The Queen" - Helen Mirren was great, and James Cromwell was almost as good.

"Frost/Nixon" - For Frank Langella. But as a Watergate obsessive, I was disappointed by the false drama in the way Ron Howard ended the movie. Trust me, what Nixon revealed in that interview really wasn't that big a deal.

"Mrs. Brown" - Judi Dench was great, and Billy Connolly was even better.

"Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind" - WOW. Just saw this a couple of nights ago, and am still thinking about it. Will probably replace "The Truman Show" as my favorite Jim Carrey movie.

Muhammad and Larry

I admit it - when I was growing up, I consistently rooted against Muhammad Ali. I think it was because I was a huge Joe Frazier fan. Even at an early age, it aggravated me that Nat Fleischer's Ring Magazine refused to recognize Frazier as the World Heavyweight Champion [when Ali was barred from fighting], until he defeated Ali in the legendary 1971 bout. But what did I know? I was too young to have seen Ali fight, and had seen several key Frazier fights - Quarry, Ellis, Foster, even Bonavena. I was also too young to understand the meaning of Ali, and why he meant so much to so many people.

That would change over time. More has been written about Muhammad Ali than perhaps any other athlete in my lifetime, and over the years I've read well more than my share. And great writers have gravitated to Ali - in The Muhammad Ali reader alone, one can find A.J. Liebling, Tom Wolfe, George Plimpton, Leroi Jones, Norman Mailer, Roger Kahn, Garry Wills, Hunter S. Thompson, Mark Kram, Joyce Carol Oates, and Gay Talese. Today, that should come as no surprise. As an athlete, Ali was a unique combination of charisma, talent and history that has not been matched in my lifetime, and probably has never been matched.

If the story of all great fighters ends in tragedy, then it would make sense that the greatest tragedy of all would involve the greatest fighter of our time. No one dies in "Muhammad and Larry," but it is a tragedy, nonetheless. It tells the story of a fight which should never have taken place - Muhammad Ali vs. Larry Holmes, in the fall of 1980. There have been a lot of fights over the years which should never have taken place. But when your primary subject is Muhammad Ali, the moment of decline represented by the fight brings with it a pain that sears through your soul - a pain that makes you wonder whether all of those people who have written for so many years that boxing is nothing more than savagery are right.

The Sports Illustrated cover shown above is from late September 1980, shortly before the Ali-Holmes fight. SI bought into the illusion, like everyone else did at the time - simply because he was Ali, it was conceivable that the fight could be won. Logic, common sense and simple analysis dictated otherwise, but that didn't stop anyone from hoping. This was Muhammad Ali!

That the story's ending was so obviously pre-determined is what makes "Muhammad and Larry" so painful and sad to watch today. Larry Holmes was an outstanding fighter who, like many fighters of that era, had the misfortune to be practicing his craft at exactly the same time as the most charismatic athlete of the time. Holmes was also a decent man, and not a stupid one. He knew that there was no way he could lose to a 38-year old Muhammad Ali, an Ali who had not fought for over 2 years. Had it been his choice alone, he might not have fought Ali. But at the same time, he had to fight Muhammad Ali, if he was going to make his mark, place his name in the pantheon of great heavyweights. And so fight him he did. And the beating which Ali took that night, no doubt, played a key role in the degeneration that was to come.

It wasn't easy to watch, but so far it has easily been the best of the outstanding "30 for 30" series of films currently running on ESPN.

If You're Gonna Survive Zombies, You've Got to Nut Up or Shut Up

Zombieland is the latest entry in the unlikely "zombie comedy" genre, and while it may not be quite as good as Shaun of the Dead (to my knowledge, the only other entry in the genre), it definitely has its moments.

Aside from the zombies (who differ from any other zombies that I've seen, in that they are really, really fast), there are only four characters in the movie with significant screen time. As Columbus (no names, just hometowns), Jesse Eisenberg looks exactly like the kind of geeky kid who would create a running list of rules to deal with zombies (up to 32 at last count), while Emma Stone (Wichita) and Abigail Breslin (Little Rock) acquit themselves well as sisters who continue to run cons in Zombieland just like they did in the good ol' USA. But the real star of the show, in a great performance, is Woody Harrelson as Tallahassee. All he really wants is to find a twinkie (as he says, "pretty soon lifes little twinkie gauge is gonna go empty"), and kill him some zombies.

The plot, such as it is, isn't much. It's essentially a road film, where the protagonists learn a bit about each other, and try to survive in an inhospitable world where most of those left just want to rip your intestines out and eat them. But the jokes are good, and as you may have heard, there's a great cameo featuring a big, big comedy star that is worth the price of admission all by itself.

So if you only have time to see one zombie comedy this fall, by all means - make it Zombieland.

Before There Was Top Chef...

...there was Julia Child. And Julie Powell.

By now, the story of Julie & Julia is well known - a few years ago, Julie Powell decided to cook her way through "Mastering the Art of French Cooking," the cookbook that put Julia Child on the map and started her down the road to international stardom. Self described as "too old for theatre, too young for children, and too bitter for anything else," Powell set for herself the goal of tackling all of the book's 536 recipes in one year, while blogging about it along the way. And along the way, there were successes and there were failures - but ultimately she finished the project, secured a book deal, became pretty darn famous for a blogger, and is now the subject of the movie which bears her name, along with that of her hero and idol.

From what I've read, there is now a backlash in the blogosphere against Julie Powell, and many of the reviews of the film have criticized the portion of the film that tells her story, while heaping lavish praise on the "Julia Child" portion. For what it's worth, I agree with those who have argued that Julie Powell deserves all the credit in the world, because without her Julie & Julia would never have existed.

Having said that, I don't think there's any question that the Julia Child portions of the film are superior to the Julie Powell sections. That doesn't mean the Julie Powell sections are awful - they're not. They're entertaining, and they do a good job realistically depicting a marriage where both partners are determined to make it work, while having limits on how much leeway they're able (or willing) to afford each other.

What it all boils down to is that Amy Adams and Chris Messina are not Meryl Streep and Stanley Tucci. Which is not their fault; they're not bad in their roles. But Streep and Tucci are great in theirs, and Streep is a good deal more than that - she's amazing. I don't know enough about the art of acting to be able to describe what she does on screen, but suffice to say that she becomes Julia Child - voice, mannerisms, in the way she carries herself, and in her always obvious zest for life.

As I watched it, each time the Julie sections were underway, I found myself wanting to go back to Julia. But overall, it's a fun movie, especially for anyone interested in cooking - or blogging.

A Great Conversation about Basterds

Before heading out for a few days, I want to point everyone to a great conversation that is taking place on a great blog - Sergio Leone and the Infield Fly Rule - about "Inglourious Basterds."

Enjoy. And take note - the link is to just the first part of the conversation...for more, you'll have to head to the main page.

I Want My Scalps!

(Spoilers ahead, although nothing you couldn’t have read in any review)

There’s little doubt that Quentin Tarantino is the most polarizing director working today. If you don’t believe me, just head on over to the Inglourious Basterds page on the Internet Movie Database, click on “external reviews,” and pick 5 or 6 of them at random. If you don’t find at least one reviewer who thought the movie was a masterpiece and one who thought it was an abomination, I’ll be surprised (hint: if you want to save time, just read Roger Ebert and Kenneth Turan). And then there’s Slate, which decided to have its cake and eat it too, calling the movie “brilliant and reprehensible.”

Anyone who’s seen the trailer for Inglourious Basterds knows the general outline of the story – Brad Pitt, as Lt. Aldo Raine, leads “the Basterds,” 8 Jewish American soldiers dropped behind enemy lines in France to wreak havoc, spread fear, and “kill Nazis:”

My name is Lt. Aldo Raine and I need me eight soldiers. We're gonna be dropped into France, dressed as civilians. We're gonna be doing one thing and one thing only... killing Nazis. Members of the nationalist socialist party conquered Europe through murder, torture, intimidation, and terror. And that's exactly what we're gonna do to them. We will be cruel to the German and through our cruelty they will know who we are. They will find the evidence of our cruelty in the disemboweled, dismembered, disfigured bodies of their brothers we leave behind us and the German will not be able to help themselves from imagining the cruelty their brothers endured at our hands, at our boot heels, and the edge of our knives. And the German will be sickened by us, the German will talk about us and the German will fear us. Nazis ain't got no humanity! They need to be destroyed. Each and every man under my command owes me one hundred Nazi scalps... and I want my scalps!

Suffice to say that the Basterds pursue their goal with gusto, by means conventional (machine gun ambushes) and not (baseball bats). As Aldo Raine, Pitt proves again that he is at his best when he gets to set aside his good looks and have fun with a role. His Tennessee-born, part-Apache Raine is well over the top, but in a good way. In terms of the acting, the rest of the Basterds do their part, but none really stands out one way or another.

But Inglourious Basterds wouldn’t be a Tarantino movie if it didn’t have multiple plots at work. And as with several of his past films, Basterds is told in chapter format, developing several threads of a story that intersect only in the last act. Of the chapters, two represent film-making at its best. The first, titled “Once Upon A Time in Nazi-Occupied France,” begins with an idyllic setting, a farm on the French countryside. A rugged farmer works outside, with his beautiful daughters lending a hand. For a minute, you think you’ve stumbled onto the set of Jean de Florette. But then, the sound of a motorcar is heard, and it carries the Nazi known as “the Jew hunter,” Lt. Hans Landa. Landa is not your stereotypical Nazi goon – he’s polite, he’s charming, and he’s absolutely brilliant. In a seemingly innocent conversation with the farmer in his small home, during which the tension increases until it is almost unbearable, Landa deduces that the farmer is indeed hiding a Jewish family. The result of his discovery is unsurprising.

The portrayal of Landa by Christoph Waltz, an Austrian actor, is magnificent. Waltz captured an acting prize at the Cannes Film Festival for the role, and he should be a lock for an Academy Award nomination. By imbuing the character with charm, wit and intelligence, he creates a Nazi that in the end is more sinister, and more evil, than any I can recall seeing in any movie.

The second brilliant scene occurs when a suave British officer joins the Basterds in a plot which everyone hopes will result in the death of the upper Nazi echelon (including Hitler himself) as they’re viewing the latest cinematic “masterpiece” produced by Propaganda Minister Goebbels. The officer and two of the Basterds are meeting their contact, a German actress turned double-agent, in a small basement tavern. Alas, a group of Nazi soldiers (and one officer) is at the tavern celebrating one of them becoming a father for the first time. And, similar to the first scene, the tension slowly builds until it reaches a climax of sudden and brutal violence.

The other main story thread involves the lone Jewish survivor of the first chapter, who now owns the small cinema where the plot is intended to become explosive. She meets a young Nazi soldier who is a hero for his exploits but also a film buff; he becomes smitten with her and talks Goebbels, his mentor, into moving the premiere of the film (in which he stars as himself) from its original site to her small cinema. And it is in that small cinema where Tarantino pulls off his most audacious move. Unlike some reviews I’ve read, I’m not going to give it away. Go see the movie, and find out for yourself!

Like all Tarantino films, Inglourious Basterds is an exhilarating roller coaster ride. And once again, Tarantino proves that he is a master of dialogue as much as a master of violence. But like an album with one great side, it’s difficult to figure out exactly where in the pantheon it should fall.

District 9 Provokes Horror, Thought

The first half of District 9 may be the best, most thought-provoking piece of film-making released this year. The second half is more conventional, but still light-years beyond much of what passes for summer fare in this day and age (although I have to say that I’ve really enjoyed the movies that I’ve seen this summer).

The basic premise is simple enough – twenty years ago, a gigantic spaceship “ran out of gas” above Johannesburg, and eventually the survivors were transported down to the surface, in what at the time seemed like (and probably was) a humanitarian gesture. The aliens look a little bit like an upright lobster, and they communicate with an odd-sounding clicking language. Their human hosts quickly tired of their presence, invented a derogatory term for them (“prawns”), made fun of their dietary habits (for some reason, they absolutely adore cat food) and generally did everything they could to ensure that the aliens were confined to District 9, just outside of the city.

Fast forward to the present day, when the distaste for the aliens has reached the point that a plan has been developed to transfer them to District 10, even further away from the city, to put some additional space between them and the human residents of Johannesburg. The move, which is “voluntary” in name but in fact nothing of the sort, is akin to moving the residents of the Warsaw Ghetto to a concentration camp. There is a reason that the movie is set in Johannesburg (other than the simplest one, the fact that the film-makers are South African) – the parallels to apartheid are obvious, and make even more affecting the easy cruelty with which all of the residents of the city treat the aliens.

In charge of this horrifying enterprise is one Wikus Van De Merwe, a bureaucrat will little sense and even less sensitivity for the job he has just been handed. It quickly becomes apparent that Wikus has no empathy for the aliens and the squalor in which they live (where their few neighbors include dangerous and ruthless Nigerian gangs), and the film’s most horrifying moment comes when Wikus stumbles across a “house” where alien eggs are being cultivated, and with glee on his face and in his voice, sets the house on fire while comparing the sound the eggs make to that of popcorn popping.

Up to this point, the story has been told in part-documentary fashion, with key figures from Wikus’ life (wife, parents, father-in-law, co-workers) telling his story. All along you know that something is going to happen to him, and eventually it does, when he accidentally sprays himself in the face with an alien liquid and begins a slow, painful transition to becoming a “prawn” himself. It is at that point that the movie becomes more of a standard action picture, as Wikus slowly comes to grips with his fate and eventually teams with one of the aliens and his son to retrieve the liquid, which as it turns out is fuel to allow this particular alien (“Christopher Johnson”) to return to the mother ship and get it running again. Shoot-outs and action scenes commence, all of which are well done (the baddest of the bad guys all get what’s coming to them), but none of which quite approaches the brilliance (or the bleakness) of the beginning.

But taken as a whole, the movie is a terrific debut effort for director Neill Blomkamp, and a triumph for Sharlto Copley, the actor who portrays Wikus. A science-fiction action picture that gets you thinking – can one really ask for more than that?

"The Hurt Locker" Sets New Standards for Tension

As “The Hurt Locker” begins, a bomb-defusing unit is investigating a suspicious pile of garbage sitting on a Baghdad street. A remote, robotic device is used to confirm that yes, the pile contains a bomb. Another remote device is sent to remove pieces of the pile, so that the bomb can be approached by a technician who will then proceed to defuse it. The remote device fails. The technician puts on his protective suit, and begins a slow walk towards the bomb. The other men in his unit are watchful, and tightly wound. People begin to watch from the rooftops. A man comes into sight. He is carrying what could be a detonator. It could be nothing more than a cell phone. The technician is now close to the bomb. The scene quickly descends into chaos as fear overtakes the men in the unit.

In most movies, that would be the climactic scene. In “The Hurt Locker,” it’s just the beginning. The tension ratchets up from there, and it never lets up for the next 130 minutes. By the end of the movie, regardless of what you think about U.S. involvement in Iraq, you feel an appreciation for what it’s like over there (or was like in 2004, when the movie is set). This is not a movie that has time for sentiment, or one that tries to steer the viewer into a rigid opinion about the war in question. It is a movie about men with a job to do, and then it is up to each individual viewer to decide whether they respect those men, or are appalled by their actions.

Off the top of my head, I cannot think of another war movie that maintains the level of tension that is felt throughout the entirety of “The Hurt Locker.” The soldiers in this movie don’t spend their evenings in the bar or talking with each other about what their lives were like back in the states. No, they release their tension by hitting each other as hard as they possibly can – which may help them, but doesn’t do much for the person watching the movie who is wondering whether this is the scene where one of the main characters buys it.

Two scenes in particular stand out. The first occurs when the bomb unit meets up with a band of “contractors” (i.e. mercenaries) out in the desert. The scene begins tensely, as the two units try to figure out if the other is friendly. And then they come under fire from an Iraqi unit, which cannot even be seen at first. Where the scene becomes almost too tense to watch is when an Iraqi sniper and a member of the American unit find each other in their sights – but the shot is a long, difficult one. Whoever makes the shot first will live to tell the tale. The other one will be dead.

The second scene occurs when William James, the bomb technician played by Jeremy Renner, blunders into an Iraqi home where he believes he will learn something about an Iraqi boy who has been gruesomely mutilated and killed. When he comes into contact with an Iraqi man and his wife, the situation quickly descends into chaos, and as it does you feel totally helpless – you want desperately for things to calm down, but it’s far too late for that. Getting out alive is the best one can hope for.

The movie is directed brilliantly by Kathryn Bigelow, and the cast is superb. The men of the unit are played by Jeremy Renner, Anthony Mackie and Brian Geraghty. None are household names, but all should be after “The Hurt Locker.” Renner in particular is amazing – his performance comes with a brute force not unlike that which Russell Crowe demonstrated in “L.A. Confidential,” before anyone had heard of him. Also outstanding in supporting roles are David Morse, Ralph Fiennes, and Guy Pearce – even though I have to admit I didn’t realize it was Guy Pearce as I was watching.

It’s a great movie – but certainly not one for everybody. If it doesn’t receive an Best Picture nomination next year, with the number of nominees increased to 10, it will be a grave injustice.

Public Enemies

We spent part of our 4th of July watching Public Enemies, Michael Mann's film about John Dillinger, Melvin Purvis and a host of other good and bad guys from the 1930s. It's a very well-made movie, and as always Mann does a good job of developing the shades of gray in his characters. So while Dillinger is obviously a "bad guy" in the most common sense of the word, he's also a fairly pragmatic one and certainly not a lunatic like his counterparts (and sometimes partners) Pretty Boy Floyd and Babyface Nelson. Johnny Depp is outstanding in the title role, again showing his versatility and his ability to play just about anything.

Christian Bale's performance as Melvin Purvis is much less showy, primarily because Mann and the screenwriters give him less to work with. You never get a sense of what Purvis is like outside of his job - as far as the movie is concerned, he is his job. Bale plays him well, but the role doesn't force him to stretch much. Having said that, he does get what I thought was the best moment in the movie, when one of his underlings is brutalizing Billie, Dillinger's girlfriend, in an effort to find out his whereabouts. Purvis intervenes tenderly but firmly, and it is in that one moment that you see what he is about - justice, but not at all costs.

Kudos to the supporting cast, especially Billy Crudup as J. Edgar Hoover, and Stephen Lang as Charles Winstead, a grizzled veteran of the Texas Rangers that Purvis calls upon to lend his Dillinger operation some ferocity.

I'm not sure it's a great movie, but it's certainly a very good one.

Moon

It's nearly impossible to discuss Moon without spoiling the movie for those who haven't seen it. And if you haven't seen it, I would strongly recommend not reading the plot description on Wikipedia, because part of the joy of the film is in relishing the unexpected turns that it takes. Even the plot synopsis on the film's official Web site gives a bit too much away.

Directed by Duncan Jones, the son of David Bowie, Moon evokes memories of past science-fiction classics like Silent Running, 2001, and Blade Runner, but at the same time is completely original. The basic story is simple. Sam Bell, the lone crewman on a mining station located on the dark side of the Moon, is within two weeks of fulfilling his three-year contract when strange things start happening - headaches, hallucinations, and an encounter with what appears to be a younger version of himself, one who believes he has just landed to begin his own three-year contract. All the while, Sam's only companion is a computer named Gerty (eerily voiced by Kevin Spacey) who appears to be helpful but can't always answer the most important questions.

It's essentially a one-man show, and Sam Rockwell - one of those actors who always seems to be just on the verge of becoming a big star - is terrific in the role. It's a great pleasure to see a film that is worthy of his talent, and even though it is a low-budget film appearing mostly on the art circuit, it could be the role that takes Rockwell to that next level.

It's a great movie - probably the best I've seen this year.

Boldly Going Where Many Have Gone Before

Director J.J. Abrams has pulled it off – creating a new vision for Star Trek that is wholly consistent with the original series, but one that also provides enough wiggle room for changes to be made in the Trek universe that won’t result in inevitable complaints along the lines of “Kirk couldn’t have done this, because in ‘The Corbomite Maneuver’ they clearly explained that…”

It’s difficult to explain exactly how Abrams pulled it off without giving away too much of the story, but suffice to say that it involves time travel, and a bad guy who wants to change his particular slice of history - but cares little about how changing his slice will impact the rest of the universe. He’s got a bug up his butt about Mr. Spock, he doesn’t much care for Captain Kirk, and he’s charismatic enough to make the conflict one that people will care about.

The movie gives new meaning to the term “breakneck pace” – it never lets up for a moment, and the action feels gratuitous in only one part – when Kirk finds himself stranded on an ice planet, and encounters a number of nasty little (and otherwise) creatures. Of necessity, much of the movie is devoted to set-up, and it’s easy to imagine that a sequel could be created that is richer in story but less heavy on the action.

As for the actors, they all acquit themselves well. Chris Pine makes a great Jim Kirk, Zachary Quinto is good enough to stand up to the inevitable comparisons to Leonard Nimoy (whose part in the movie is much bigger than I expected), Zoe Saldana lends a sense of depth to Uhura that Nichelle Nichols was rarely allowed to explore, and Karl Urban manages to develop a McCoy that is both homage to DeForest Kelley’s original and at the same time his own. The rest of the cast doesn’t have quite as much screen time, but kudos to all (even if Chekov’s accent is a little strong). I just hope that they give Simon Pegg (as Scotty) a little more to do in the next one!

All in all, a great effort and a great show – especially in IMAX!

Two Movies

I saw two movies this weekend that I'd never seen before. One is considered one of the landmark films of the 1960s; indeed, one of the most influential films of its time. It was nominated for Academy Awards; it was directed by a world-famous director; it starred, among others, an actress who is among the handful of actresses that you could reasonably call the greatest actress of all time.

The other movie is not likely to be nominated for anything. It features, among other things: a tiger in the bathroom, Mike Tyson, drinking, drugs, vomit, some of the ugliest butt cheeks you'll ever lay your eyes upon, and a leading man whose body reminds one not of Gerard Butler or Christian Bale, but John Belushi and Chris Farley.

The first movie was Michelangelo Antonioni's "Blowup," and the second movie was "The Hangover." Guess which one I liked more?

About "Blowup," the best thing I can say is that I'm glad I saw it. I'm sure it is worthy of great respect, but watching it last night the symbolism seemed painfully obvious; the suspense story somewhat lacking in suspense; and the commentary on the times hopelessly trite. I will give kudos to the performances by David Hemmings and Vanessa Redgrave, both of whom deserved the accolades they received for their respective roles. And it was pretty cool seeing The Yardbirds perform, even if they did appear to be lip-syncing (and not particularly well, I might add).

About "The Hangover," I can say that it is definitely not for everybody. There's something in the movie to offend just about everyone, from lovers of animals and babies to anyone who likes to think of themselves as being socially enlightened, even in the slightest. If you're uptight about humor which makes you squirm in your seats for being the opposite of politically correct, then by all means you should avoid this movie. As for me, I laughed out loud throughout the entire thing.

Overall, I guess you could say that we went from the sublime to the ridiculous. I'm just not sure which was which.

Frost/Nixon

I don't usually watch the in-flight movie, but I made an exception for "Frost/Nixon." I came from a long line of vehement Nixon-haters, and Watergate was one of my very first obsessions - I watched almost all of the hearings on TV, I still have all of the TIME Magazines from the era, and and I wrote my 8th Grade term paper about the scandal (for which I - ahem - received an "A+"). So I was looking forward to the film, and disappointed when it disappeared from Sacramento theaters well before the Academy Awards ceremony.

It is a very good movie and I enjoyed it, but it fell short of greatness. Michael Sheen was very good as David Frost, but never during the film could I muster much interest or sympathy for the Frost character. And even in the moments of angst, I couldn't quite figure out why I should care. Sam Rockwell and Oliver Platt were also good (as James Reston Jr. and Bob Zelnick, respectively), but I'm still waiting for the day when Rockwell makes the leap into stardom - because I think he deserves it. Kevin Bacon was his usual solid self as Jack Brennan, though I don't think it stretched him much. Of the supporting cast, Matthew Macfadyen may have been the best, as Frost's producer John Birt.

Which leaves Frank Langella. And he was great - didn't sound a lot like Nixon (though he had the cadence down pat) and certainly didn't look much like Nixon, but overall I thought he nailed the famous "Nixon insecurity" perfectly. In my book, Nixon remains one of the most fascinating political characters of my lifetime - it is simply amazing that someone as paranoid, and with such feet of clay, could have advanced so far and achieved what he did. And it was certainly no surprise that someone as smart and conniving as Nixon could easily take advantage of someone as glib and shallow as David Frost.

The biggest flaw of the film has nothing to do with the film-making: after all, you can only do so much when your source material lacks basic drama. And frankly, as interesting as the interviews were, they were almost entirely lacking in drama. And what was built up as the big relevation, Nixon saying that if the President does it, it isn't illegal, was hardly the stuff that would make Edward Murrow proud.

Overall, a very good movie brought to that level by the great performance of Frank Langella.

Catching Up on Films

I made a New Year's Resolution that I was going to comment on every movie I saw this year, and here it is not even spring and I've fallen behind. This isn't going to be the detailed kind of commentary that you'd find elsewhere, but it will allow me to proceed with a clear conscience.

The Times of Harvey Milk. The first movie I've watched all the way through on Hulu.com. A very solid documentary, with narration by Harvey Fierstein and commentary by a number of people who worked closely with Milk during his career, including Tom Ammiano, Henry Der and Bill Kraus (who would become on the major players in Randy Shilts' "And the Band Played On" just a few years after Milk's assassination). Anyone who lived in California in 1978 will remember the awful day when Milk and George Moscone were assassinated, but until "Milk," there were probably few who knew the complete story about Milk's rise to prominence in San Francisco. Even with the awful ending it is a great story, and it leaves the viewer with an unmistakable sense of "what might have been?" Seeing Bill Kraus and going back to read portions from the Randy Shilts book, you can't help but wonder what role Milk would have played as the AIDS crisis began to unfold in the early 1980s.

Johnny Guitar. I'm not quite sure what to say about this one - a very odd movie, albeit an interesting one. A stylized Western that feels nothing like the great John Ford and Howard Hawks Westerns of the same period, with performances that grab one's attention but often seem teetering on the brink of pure lunacy. Joan Crawford is always on the edge, but the out-and-out insane performance of Mercedes McCambridge makes her seem downright subtle. Great to see veterans like Sterling Hayden, Royal Dano, Scott Brady and Ernest Borgnine, though you have to wonder what they were thinking while this one was being made.

Memento. Proof positive that we are nothing if not slow. This one was all the rage - oh, about 6-7 years ago? - but somehow we managed to miss it, even though director Christopher Nolan has gone on to become all the rage (Batman Begins, The Prestige, The Dark Knight). As probably everyone in the world knows by now, the movie tells its story in reverse, which is perfectly effective at invoking in the viewer the same sense of loss that Leonard, the main character who can no longer form short-term memories, feels. Guy Pearce is terrific in the primary role, and both Joe Pantoliano and Carrie-Anne Moss are excellent in supporting roles as characters whose paths cross that of Leonard's, in his quest to find and avenge himself upon his wife's killer. The gimmick (for lack of a better word) may leave a lot of people wondering what the hell is going on, but it certainly makes you stand up and take notice.

Watching the Watchmen

The reviews have been all over the map on Watchmen, and I can see why.

I thought it was very good, but with the exception of Jackie Earle Haley as Rorschach, it didn't approach the greatness of the source material. Watchmen was a visionary comic book, one of the first to be deserving of the term "graphic novel." I agree with the reviewers who noted that it was probably impossible to replicate that vision on the big screen.

The movie begins with a flourish - The Comedian's death scene is brilliantly handled; as are the opening credits which provide backstory for many of the key characters. And importantly, it is in those credits where the movie deviates a bit from the original story, while staying true to its vision. I can understand why the filmmakers chose not to go this route, but had Director Zack Snyder and the screenwriters taken a few more chances like that, it might have pushed the movie into the realm of greatness.

Having said that, this may have been the best possible Watchmen movie that could have been made. Watchmen is subtle in comparison to 300, Snyder's last film, but there are times when it feels almost too reverent. It's a very dark story, but it would have benefited from a touch of humor here and there. The use of music is great, and I especially enjoyed the snippet of a muzaky version of "Everybody Wants to Rule the World" during a scene with Adrian Veidt/Ozymandias. Jackie Earl Haley is the obvious bright light of the cast, although everyone acquits themselves admirably. The actor portraying Ozymandias was a bit lacking in gravitas, but not enough to detract from the proceedings.

I'd hesitate to call it a disappointment - but in the end, Watchmen doesn't quite match the original, and is not in the same league as The Dark Knight or Iron Man.

"Pineapple Express"

This was my first venture into Seth Rogen/Judd Apatow territory, so I can't make any comment about how well (or not) it compares with their earlier collaborations. Having said that, a few random observations:

- By far, James Franco was the best thing about the movie. His stoner was right up there with Sean Penn's Jeff Spicoli in the all-time annals of great stoners. He had a lot of great lines, but I'm kind of partial to "F*ck Jeff Goldblum, man!" (It kind of loses something out of context). His fondness for civil engineers was also a great touch.

- What a waste of Gary Cole. If you're going to have Gary Cole in a comedy, you might want to think about having him do something funny (although the scene where he gives names to the various kinds of pot was pretty amusing). Anyone could have played that role, the way it was written.

- The whole high school girlfriend thing was a waste of time, although Rogen did get off a couple of good lines when he visits her in the hallway.

- The two hit men were a good, bizarre take on the 'hit man team cliche.'

Overall, I enjoyed it, but thought it could have been a little tighter. Which I admit is a strange thing to say about a stoner movie.

"3:10 to Yuma"

You either like westerns or you don't, and if you fall into the latter category, then "3:10 to Yuma" probably won't do much for you, even if you do appreciate good acting and solid film making.

But if you do like westerns, then this is one that you shouldn't miss. It's hardly original (it is a remake, after all, though since I've never seen the original I can't say whether it's a remake in name only), and it's got many of the key ingredients that you'll find in many another western: the stolid, quiet hero; the charismatic villain; the old bounty hunter; the virtuous wife; the brave young son; the evil railroad man; the psychopathic gunslinger...and that may not be all.

The story is simple - bad guy is caught, group of "good guys" (more or less) are charged with taking him to another town, to catch the prison train - the "3:10 to Yuma" of the movie's title. And, of course, bad guy's gang is hot on the trail, willing to do anything and everything to stop their boss from being put on the train. And for good measure, there's more evil railroad men on the route, not to mention a band of angry Indians.

A good recipe, and the ingredients are strong - Christian Bale is good as the stolid good guy, although he doesn't get to do much in the way of emoting. Russell Crowe is predictably great, turning a juicy part that might have become a joke in the hands of a lesser actor into something that's genuinely affecting - the bad guy with honor and a conscience. The rest of the cast is uniformly good, and it was nice to recognize Peter Fonda - although it only took me about half the movie to do so.

The movie culminates in a shoot-out involving just about the entire town that requires a bit of believe suspension, but is certainly rousing. The ending is open to interpretation and discussion, but however you think things are going to turn out, it's a satisfying one.

All in all, very good. If you like westerns and/or good acting, "3:10 to Yuma" is well worth the time.

"Gran Torino"

Sons #1, #2 and I celebrated the Martin Luther King holiday by going out to see "Gran Torino," the new Clint Eastwood film. Some random thoughts:

- Clint really looks old these days. But hey, he's 78. He is old. I've read differing opinions on his performance: some people think he should be nominated for an Oscar, and others think he was just playing the same "Man With No Name/Dirty Harry" type of gruff loner that made him famous. I'm not sure the two are mutually exclusive. The fact that he makes it look easy doesn't mean that it is easy. There certainly aren't a lot of actors I can think of who could have pulled off the Walt Kowalski role at that age. I would like to have seen Henry Fonda or James Stewart try something like this, but in the late stages of their careers I'm not sure either one would have agreed to play such an unlikable character. You won't hear me complaining if Oscar comes calling.

- There should be no debate on this point: the actors playing Thao and Sue (Bee Vang and Ahney Her) were really good. Especially Ahney, who infuses her character with both grim determination and an upbeat outlook. Although Walt begins to come out of his shell through his interactions with Thao, Sue is the first person to really stand up to him, to ignore the racist swill coming out of his mouth and still make an attempt to bring him closer to her family and the neighborhood.

- I admit it, the Walt/Thao relationship reminded me a bit of Mr. Miyagi teaching Daniel the ways of work and life in "The Karate Kid."

- The story has an element of sentimentality, but it doesn't try to gloss over Walt's enormous flaws. Even after he begins to interact with his neighbors, he is the same bitter man. The goodness is in there, but he doesn't change completely overnight.

- At first, the interactions with the young priest struck me as unbelievably hackneyed. But over time, the determination of Father Janovich showed him to be made of sterner stuff than his cherubic face would have you believe. He too is a strong man, strong enough to stand up to Walt and make him finally accede to his deceased wife's wishes.

The theater we saw the film in was sold out, and it was a diverse crowd - teenagers to septuagenarians, and a veritable rainbow coalition of colors. The crowd laughed a lot, which I did not interpret to mean as diminishing the impact of Walt's racism, but rather to point out what a ridiculous figure he really was - heroic but asinine at the same time.

All in all, I'd recommend it highly.

Quick Movie Thoughts

- Saw The Curious Case of Benjamin Button on New Year's Day, and I really liked it. A few critics have been sniping about the fact that the film takes a short story and turns it into a movie that is nearly three hours long, but I have to wonder - why is that any worse than taking a 600-page novel and turning it into a movie that is two hours long? The premise - Benjamin ages in reverse - is a good one, and the movie strikes a wonderful tone early on that it manages to maintain throughout its entirety. Never once did the film drag, or did I feel compelled to look and my watch and see how much of its 166 minutes were remaining. Brad Pitt was very good, as was Cate Blanchett. I thought the best performance belonged to Tilda Swinton, playing a much more sympathetic character here than she did in Burn After Reading. And sure, it's sentimental, but I don't have a problem with that if it's done well.

- Also saw Cloverfield, which is about as far on the movie-making spectrum as Benjamin Button as one can possibly imagine. The movie had many fans and many detractors, and you can count me in the former category. The hand-held camera work didn't bother me, and the first scenes after the disaster begins were incredible in their depiction of absolute fear and panic. It actually gets less scary when you begin to glimpse the monster, although you could make a movie about the babies themselves. Not a perfect movie by any stretch of the imagination, but if you like being scared in an intelligent manner, this is the one for you.