2008 was an incredibly busy year for Hollywood, and I was in the back row of the theater eating Reeses Pieces for the whole thing. After reflecting on the year in film, I was startled to see the amount of disappointing and dull films. There were few great cinematic achievements and most of those were hidden in limited release or behind a crowd of kids waiting to see Beverly Hills Chihuahua. Nonetheless, there were at least 10 gems that manifested the talent some filmmakers had to offer. Without further ado, here are my Top 10 Films of 2008:

10. Role Models: Probably the biggest surprise of the year for me and many critics. Without a doubt the funniest movie I saw in 2008. Paul Rudd, Seann William Scott, and Jane Lynch all shine in this raunchy comedy about friendship and responsibility. By the way, this is the second year in a row that Christopher Plasse, aka McLovin, had appeared on my top film list. I guess I could not get enough of his McLovin.

9. The Visitor: This was a film released earlier in the year and almost forgotten except for the lead performance by Richard Jenkins. He starred as a lonely widower who befriended an African couple after they mistakenly settled in his vacant New York apartment. They repaid him with lessons of companionship and culture. A very delightful story that turned suspenseful after they faced challenges of immigration. A very moving film.

8. Doubt: Meryl Streep and Philip Seymour Hoffman once again proved that they were the royalty of actors. Most will remember her this year for the zany performance in the eye candy musical Mamma Mia!  I saw that film and just wanted to erase the sounds of Pierce Brosnan singing from my memory. Doubt was an incredible film about the confrontation of a nun and priest in a Catholic school after allegations of child molestation.

7. Religulous: I am a little biased with this film since I love Bill Mahar and his anti-religious viewpoints. It was a very disturbing and hilarious documentary about the global implications of organized religions. A must-see.

6. Frost/Nixon: Director Ron Howard seemed to be the go-to guy when it came to choosing fascinating and appealing scripts. This time he created a captivating portrayal of Richard Nixon after the Watergate Scandal through the story of a series of interviews that Nixon participated in with pretty boy David Frost in 1977. Frost was known more for his talk show antics more than political discussions. Many young people will not be drawn to this story due to its historic theme; however, it was in no way a stereotypical History Channel bore. The performances and fantastic script livened up the genre and made it a wonderful film.

5. The Dark Knight: Definitely a fan favorite, I considered The Dark Knight to be one of the best superhero films ever made. Heath Ledger’s performance had outshined the entire work, but the well developed story and brilliant direction illustrated the perfection of the film. By the way, what was with Christian Bale’s deep lisp as Batman? I do not remember the Caped Crusader ever having a speech impediment.

4. The Wrestler: Director Darren Aronofsky was known for his films of characters hitting rock-bottom, remember Requiem for a Dream? This story followed a washed-up wrestler pinned, pun intended, by health problems, bankruptcy, and loneliness. Mickey Rourke tackled, pun also intended, the lead role and delivered a performance worthy of many awards. What made this film outstanding was that it was not about the world of wrestling but the consequences of the profession. Absolutely phenomenal film.

3. Milk: This film about the first gay politician in the 1970s should have been released prior to Election Day, so that people would have understood the struggles for sexual equality. This film had it all: suspense, love, drama, comedy, and male nudity. Sean Penn delivered another great performance as Harvey Milk, and there are a few other surprise performances by Josh Brolin, James Franco, Emile Hirsch, and that flamboyant kid from High School Musical! Disney claimed he had a girlfriend…right. Anyway, a powerful and must-see film to understand the discrimination against homosexuals in the last forty years.

2. WALL-E: I will be honest: I always hated animated films. They are directed toward the intelligence of six year olds, and I have been reading Newsweek since I was seven. Nonetheless, sometimes an animated film is released that breaks the confines of the genre. WALL-E not only stood as a great animated kids’ feature, but it was one of the best films ever made.

A simple story of a robot in love, the film provided lessons about human destruction of the Earth and themselves. I have a soft spot for love stories and two robots holding hands do it for me every time.

1.Slumdog Millionaire: I always know that I have seen the best movie of the year after I feel a shiver go up my spine at some point. This film did it. The story of an Indian boy’s adventure on a game show may seem like a lame premise, but it builds into a beautifully crafted tale of the life of an impoverished child surviving in the ghetto and falling in love. There were no robots holding hands; instead, the growth of a boy wanting devotion more than monetary success.

With dreadful depictions of poverty, but a story of hope and passion, Slumdog Millionaire was absolute perfection. If that does not interest you, just see it to discover the Indian version of Regis Philbin.

Here’s to you 2008!

No related posts.

Nevertheless, this year’s first holiday release was Four Christmases, a romantic comedy starring a cluster of famous actors including the two leads, Reese Witherspoon and Vince Vaughn. They play a happily dating couple who plan to spend their Christmas vacation in Fiji and away from their dysfunctional divorced families. However, on the morning of their flight, all planes are grounded due to fog, which force them to visit all four of their separated parents in one day.

During each visit, the couple learns something new about each other through embarrassing family discussions or conflicts. There is also a theme of family bonding after they question their relationship in the long run. Typical Christmas film: a candy coated layer that has a gooey center.

Regardless of the familiar formula, the film works quite well. There was an immense amount of publicity during filming about Vaughn and Witherspoon constantly fighting on set or refusing to do scenes with one another. Surprising, the petty conflicts did not injure their performances or chemistry, because the two actors are great. Vaughn’s typical rants add a lot of laughs to the film, and Witherspoon’s earnestness makes the awkward situations even more enjoyable. Also, the film’s supporting cast including Jon Voight, Robert Duvall, Sissy Spacek, Jon Favreau, and even Tim McGraw all add their own comedic touch to the film. The writing and directing are fine for a comedy, but above par when it comes to a holiday film because there is no denying that films about Christmas are not aimed to win awards.

For anyone who has been subjected to the awkward holiday encounters with the new lover’s parents, you would appreciate the situations for the characters. For instance, Vaughn’s brothers are aspirant UFC wrestlers and spend the entire visit trying to put him in a headlock to say “mercy.” We all have our shameful family stories during the holidays that we have to accept, because that is who we are. This film captures that spirit and adds some wonderfully witty banter to bring an enjoyable comedy for the holidays.
To complete this review, I thought it would only be appropriate to share one of my more embarrassing holiday stories involving a partner’s family. The first time I went to my old lover’s Christmas party, I was introduced to her crazy grandparents. After shaking their hands the grandmother leaned into my partner’s ear to ask, “Is he black boy?” This was not too embarrassing until she went around to every aunt and uncle asking if they thought I was black. First, I am a pasty white guy; second, would you really ask everyone in sight if someone was a certain race? Regardless of the horror, I got a gift certificate to Circuit City for the experience and we broke up a few months later. Oh, those holidays.

My Grade: B
My Ex’s Grandmother: Insane

No related posts.

This installment of the 40-year old franchise is someplace in the 20’s. I lost track of the chapters somewhere between him being in space or fighting Christopher Walken at a large scale equestrian event.

I will be honest, I have seen most of these films. I can remember my pre-pubescent days when I became very allured to the cheesy Roger Moore take on these action films. Then Pierce Brosnan caught my attention for a few films until he ended his streak as 007 to concentrate on more dramatic films, like Mamma Mia!

However, the Bond adventures have taken on a bit of a makeover, or should I say pumped with adrenaline and Viagra. With Oscar-winning writers behind the scripts, talented directors behind the scenes, and hunky Daniel Craig behind the martini, the Bond series has taken a turn toward astonishing.

The Quantum of Solace picks up directly after the last film Casino Royale and follows Bond on a journey of revenge after his soulmate was killed. The context of her murder is traced to a new international predicament, involving a lot of explosions and car chases.

Bond uncovers a plot designed by an environmentalist, ironically named Mr. Greene, to promote a coup to overthrow the Bolivian government, to acquire land in a scheme to make a lot of money. Along the way, Bond meets a gorgeous lady named Camille, and they try to prevent this coup and seek revenge at the same time. It is not Shakespeare, but what do you expect from a 20 something chapter of an action series?

Nonetheless, it really is an entertaining and well made film. The two films since the recent revamp, Casino Royale and Quantum of Solace, can actually be considered authentic cinematic treasures instead of simply annual eye candy that the last twenty years of Bond has presented to its audience.

The two stories are realistic, and the actors actually show emotions rather than only delivering silly lines of sexual innuendo. On the topic of actors, I know Connery had the charm, Moore had the jokes, and Brosnan had the voice, but Daniel Craig has the talent.

Craig is a real actor that pulls off the action sequences and delivers the human quality of the character that no previous actor has even attempted. I hope he can stick around for the next decade of Bond films.

I can make no prediction on how many of these British secret agent films there will be.

I still have not figured out how one agent, code name James Bond or 007, can age so well and look so different throughout the years? Do they pass on this identity to new agents every couple of years and it just so happened that Roger Moore got it for about twenty of them? Or are we honestly supposed to believe that James Bond goes from the age of AARP to mid-life crisis between an adventure?

So many questions about this ridiculous series; regardless, Quantum of Solace is a very enjoyable film.

My Grade: B+

No related posts.

The film stars Paul Rudd, known for his sexy character in Anchorman, and Seann William Scott, known for his horny character in American Pie, as two spokesmen for an energy drink that turns a person’s urine neon green. After Rudd gets dumped by his longtime girlfriend, played by Elizabeth Banks, he and Scott get arrested following drunk driving a large truck onto school property.

The men are then sentenced to 150 hours of community service as adult mentors to children who have social issues through a program headed by an ex cocaine addict who enjoys describing her horrid past in detail.

The outcast assigned to Scott is an outspoken inner city child devoted to yelling racial and sexual remarks while causing constant disaster. Rudd is assigned the exact opposite, a friendless teen, played by Christopher Plasse, known for his McLovin’ character in SuperBad, who is dedicated to fantasy warfare and mystic worlds.

There is a fairly obvious formula to this film. The men are first greatly aggravated by the boys and get involved in ridiculous situations. Then everyone bonds for a short while until the two mentors disappoint the boys but eventual find redemption through apologies and understanding.

Although there is a gooey center to this film, it is one of the most hilarious and entertaining two hours in cinema so far this year.

I was surprised by this since every main character was based off of previous performances. Scott again plays a pervert. McLovin’ is once again a dork, and Rudd plays a brokenhearted guy. However, the script is well developed and contains enough unique situations and jokes that you fall in love with them again.

I debated with a friend on which character stole the show, but it does not matter since everyone was that funny. My personal favorite was their organization’s ex drug addict leader, played by Jane Lynch, who can deliver the most senseless phrases with a convincing face.

If you do not trust my review then trust the two elder folks sitting in front of me. Surrounding them was a group of outlandish high school students who would not stop talking. But no one complained. Why? Because we all laughed at every joke together, even the sexual ones. Apparently it does not matter whether you are 20 or 60, jokes involving breasts and penises are always funny.

My Grade: B+

No related posts.

I do not understand why I or the millions of other fans flock to see these movies year after year. The direction is always horrible, acting always amateur, script always pathetic, and camera angles always off centered.

Nonetheless, viewing these ridiculous horror films during Halloween is like eating candy corn, you crave these things once a year and once you indulge, the desire instantly goes away for 12 months.

The plot of Saw V involves a couple of reoccurring FBI detectives investigating more stylistic murders similar to Jig Saw’s horrific puzzles.

Since the infamous murderer Jig Saw and his accomplice both died a few sequels ago, the detectives must find the new criminal mastermind through his or her connections to Jig Saw.

During their investigation five “strangers” are forced to kill, electrocute, burn, and dismember each other to survive another gruesome trap set to have them learn life lessons.

These Saw films are inevitably getting worse by sequel, but there is still enough novelty to produce an audience for Halloween. If these audiences are not scared, there are plenty of minor details in the film that accidentally bring laughter.

A personal favorite involved a scene of a detective typing a name into a computer database. His rapid moving fingers and intense sound of the keys would indicate that he is writing an essay for Dr. Bookmiller; however, the camera moves to the screen where it shows him typing a seven letter name.

Woops. There are also a plethora of cheesy scenes of dialogue that will have the audience cringing in pity for the writers.
Lines like, “What do we do?!” when two people are staring at a reciprocating saw that has to be used to fill a glass of their own blood. In a near death situation, this should not be the first thing to come to mind.

Overall, there is nothing new with this chapter in the franchise.

It is just a little worse than the last, and there is already a reality show dedicated to finding a screaming girl for the next film. As long as audiences keep grabbing for the candy corn in habit, there will be more Saw films produced for Halloween.

We all need to have a conference to collectively agree to stop seeing these films. Too much eye candy is a very bad thing.

My Grade: C-

No related posts.

That renowned president was George W. Bush shortly after his 2000 election victory. This event along with many other biographical elements of his life is the target of this week’s controversial new release “W.”

Directed by Oliver Stone, who is no stranger to divisive filmmaking, W. chronicles the early life of George Bush in order to dissect the man in the White House and why he has made the decisions he did for the last eight years.

This film will disappoint many, because it is not a comedy that satirizes the bumbling president and his many mannerisms. It also does not reveal dramatic revelations about the corruption and scandals of his administration. Instead, it is a dramatic portrayal of the demons that haunted his early life and the quest to find redemption and success as an adult.

The interesting theme that the writers present in W. revolve around George’s relationship with his father and the constant need to earn his approval.

Daddy Bush is presented as an American hero: World War II veteran, wealthy businessman, successful commander in Chief, while George W. Bush was plagued by alcohol abuse, a poor work ethic, and low grades. Yet, they both become presidents and both encounter similar national issues that ultimately define their leadership abilities and legacies. Revealing this side of the Bush family aids the nation’s ability to dissolve the confusion on the decisions that President Bush has made while providing him as a human and not just a figure.

I really wanted to like this film, because I thought the attempt at linking his personal life with his politics was both interesting and rational. However, there are a lot of flaws that keep it from becoming worth the drive to the theater and the six dollars for a watered-down soda. The performances are all fantastic including Josh Brolin’s take on Bush, but they come off cartoony to make the audience amused. This direction would be great if the film was not a rich melodrama tackling emotional scenes and storylines.

Also, while the script has great content, it contains a noticeable amount of cheesy dialogue that is borderline Hallmark Channel.

In summary, this film produced stereotyped caricatures delivering emotional scenes written by the Hallmark Channel.

W. would have worked much better in ten years when the Bush legacy is more understood, his mannerisms forgotten, and his audience less polarized. At least four times during the film, a significant part of the audience yelled out political comments towards the George Bush on the screen.

Granted I watched the film in York, but I was shocked to find people actually believe that yelling at a projected fake representation of Bush would make a difference. Maybe they should have shared the same disgust when York overwhelmingly supported him in 2004.

My Grade: C+

No related posts.

Once again, I have fulfilled the duty of research for you and found one of the most brilliant and thought provoking documentaries in years. It is called Religulous and is currently playing at Penn Cinema this week.

Religulous follows political analyst Bill Maher on a holy journey throughout the U.S., Europe and the Middle East to challenge the religious followers and leaders on the intellect of their beliefs. What results is an often hilarious and always thoughtful documentary that offers the questions that no person of a certain faith has had to answer.

As a documentary, Religulous is well developed and most importantly entertaining. Maher has a natural wit that carries the film into its different segments, and he never fails to offer logical explanations for why these certain belief systems are absurd. The director Larry Charles, the filmmaker that also directed Borat, has perfected this documenting style of mocking the average American without them discovering their stupidity until after the film is released. All of these religious followers described exactly what they believed, which provides the hilarity of the film.

For example, one preacher was once a gay man but later married a lesbian and had three kids because he thought God wanted him to be a heterosexual.

However, there is a shocking undertone to the film after it illustrates the tragedies caused in the name of religion. Fundamentalists of all three major religions taking turns killing each other in the name of their own God, does this not seem to be a paradox?

Many viewers may be put off by the film because of their own religious beliefs; however, the subjects of corruption and violence caused by these large-scale faith systems need to be understood and reformed. Maher does not attempt to humiliate any of these believers; in fact, they do an excellent job of it themselves.

He simply documents a quest to find the fallacies of organized religions, and why they create such followings. The lessons in this film remind me of a wonderful philosophy lecture I received from Dr. Smith, where he described the Existentialist principle that a person should live ‘this worldly,’ because no one has certainty about another world. If people lived their lives only thinking of this world, would there be as many murders in the name of God or homosexual males marrying lesbians?

Think about this world and see this truly excellent film. I will end this review with the same message that Maher ends the film: are the emotional and spiritual securities offered by believing in a major religion worth the violent conflicts and humanitarian consequences?

My Grade: A

No related posts.

The first ass, played by Jason Biggs, is a tight-ass who follows the rules and uses polite gestures to impress the love of his life, played by Hudson. The other type, known as the asshole, played by the never astounding Dane Cook, uses graphic sexual advances and insults to talk women into going to bed with him.

How these two asses got involved in a love story is beyond me; however, I will try my best to relay the story the writers attempted to execute. Cook makes money from pathetic guys by going on planned bad dates to purposely disgust the women into going back to their exes. Since Biggs cannot secure a relationship with Hudson, he gets Cook to act like a jerk on a date with her hoping that she will want to return to him.

However, she falls for Cook and Cook falls for her, and the whole situation becomes a crazy love triangle of lust!

At least that is what the film makers hoped. Instead, it becomes a stiff romantic comedy that had me bored out of my mind and more interested in the couple making out in front of me. The film is also wrongly titled, since Cook and Biggs are cousins.

Technically the film is My Best Cousin’s Girlfriend, but I’m guessing there are no songs with this title to steal from.

Dane Cook is no Vince Vaughn, so his rapid fire jokes are not amusing but truly annoying.

The other two are no better in this film, especially when everyone gets sentimental in the tedious last thirty minutes.

To entertain myself in that last half hour, I decided to count different annoyances throughout the film in an attempt to truly compare this film to a statistics class.
Freshmen readers: please take this data, insert it into Excel, compute the relationships, and tell me the percentage of film that was bad.

5:The times they played the song, “My Best Friend’s Girl.”
0:The number of times I laughed out loud.
6: Minutes that Actor Alec Baldwin was on the screen.
2: The number of eyebrows that Jason Biggs shaves off.
45: The minutes it took me to look at my watch because I was so bored.
0: The number of films Dane Cook should ever be in.

My Grade: D

No related posts.

Is it just me or has the crime drama genre gotten out of hand?

It seems like every week there is a new criminal mystery or conspiracy that takes great stars from serious melodramas to running the streets of L.A. in the rain to catch a predator. Not to mention the superfluous amount of detective shows on TV that takes timeslots from the usual sitcoms.

However, this week’s new cinematic release Burn After Reading moves the genre into a new satirical art form.

Directed by the Coen Brothers, the film makers that created the masterpieces Fargo, No Country for Old Men, and the college student favorite The Big Lebowski, this film is a well crafted satire that raises the question. Why does everyone involved in a cinematic conspiracy take themselves so seriously?

With an all-star cast led by George Clooney, Brad Pitt, Tilda Swinton, and John Malkovich, Burn After Reading tells separate stories involving blackmail, the Russian government, broken marriages, and gym trainers all revolving around the mounting anxiety over a computer disc found on a locker room floor.

The brilliance of this film is how well it is crafted. The first 20 minutes is pure stereotypical C.I.A. drama and later unfolds into a hilarious soap opera filled with bizarre scenes of goofy angst and high ranked government officials dealing with ordinary idiots. The actors are all wonderful and play their characters with such believability, even during outrageous breakdowns toward the end.

Burn After Reading is in no way the Coen Brothers’ best film; however, with five cinematic gems and a Best Picture Oscar in a single decade, it must be hard to compete with themselves.

The only reason a person would not enjoy this film would be because they took it too seriously.

In reality, how can they, when in the film Brad Pitt uses the phrase, “I got your shit” to a CIA investigator while he is wearing bicycle shorts and has more volume in his hair than Donald Trump? On a final note, two older women sitting in the front bought tickets to Mama Mia!, but sat through the entire film.

They must have preferred the scene of a rugged George Clooney handling a dildo over Pierce Brosnan’s singing any day.

My Grade: A-

No related posts.

There is hope. During a late summer intelligence film drought, one must rigorously investigate and perform in depth research to find a possible gem. This week’s gamble is a little film called Hamlet 2. This satire stars British comedian Steve Coogan as Dana Marschz, a horrible actor stuck in deep denial of his failed dreams of stardom and an abusive relationship with his wife, played by the brilliant Catherine Keener. Dana attempts to begin his legacy by teaching drama at a Tucson high school to only encounter a class of misfits and a potential loss of school funding for his course. To motivate his students and save the program, he vows to write and produce a masterpiece by creating a sequel to Shakespeare’s Hamlet.

The plotline is very familiar and the characters are based exclusively on stereotypes; however, that is the aim for this satire on the conventional journey to the top story. The performances are spot on, and Steve Coogan shines as the overzealous teacher determined to find success. This comedy uses a unique formula of witty dialogue, dead-pan jokes, and raunchy sexual humor to produce an incredibly enjoyable comedy. However, the humor is very over-the- top and offensive. The two musical numbers during the actual production of Hamlet 2 involve being raped in the mouth and Jesus resurrecting as a sexual tool in order to connect with people during contemporary times. Risky? Definitely, but nothing short of hilarious.

Hamlet 2 may not be cinematic Shakespeare, but it’s an original satire that will score some laughs and create enough gossip to catapult Coogan’s comedic career away from minor supporting roles. Let’s just hope the opposite will happen to Diesel and Fraser, the only two action stars that make Schwarzenegger look like Al Pacino.

My grade: B

No related posts.