The Year in Review: 2009

The following is a collection of my various film reviews for Logical Voice displayed chronologically for films released during 2009. I hope you enjoy them.

Review of Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen (reply review)

I'm afraid I have to take the minority position in the face of both Tim and Andy on this one. I quite enjoyed the original film. I felt it struck a nice balance between storytelling and action, and although it was a bit strung out, it generally made good use of the time, and I was almost for the duration entirely entertained. In a word, it was fun. This movie was however, if anything, a chore to watch.

What Michael Bay did with this film was try to take the good points of the original and amplify them in the hope that a good movie would somehow be the result. Unsurprisingly, it was not, because there was no element of fun or innocence whatsoever intermixed with the action. That is primarily a fault of the screenwriters, but it was by no means their only mistake: the plot served as nothing more than a thin screen upon which to project as many explosions as possible.

And explosions there are aplenty. This film only succeeds in two parts, in my opinion: the action scenes are spectacular, and for the most part, entertaining (although as in the last film they tend to draw out and eventually devolve into a blur of dust and metal) and the relationship between Sam and Mikaela was explored more than I had initially expected, much to its credit. Unfortunately, far too much of the screen time is devoted to the CGI and not nearly enough to the human actors, who for the most part did a good job.

Speaking of which, the film, at 150 minutes, is a gut-buster which only keeps you from leaving the cinema early thanks to the spectacular final battle. So many scenes (e.g.: Sam's mother eating the hash brownie) and so many characters (e.g.: the twins, Leo) could have been cut and the movie would have been far more enjoyable for it. The only problem then would be the absolute lack of real storytelling to fill the gaps.

For fear of dragging on, I'll wrap up here. I also agree with Andy on the point that the sequel-friendly ending was a bit of a cop-out, and I also think that Alice (Isabel Lucas) was a (not-so) subtle reference to the third Terminator movie, though there's nothing wrong with that.

I give the film two stars ** for failing to deliver the goods on so, so many counts.


Review of The Hangover

Film-making is big business these days, and often, corners are cut in the screenwriting department in order to keep up with demand. However, every now and then, a film is released whose writing is so original, it's a simple pleasure to watch. The Hangover is one such film. 

The characters in the film, though all seem somewhat familiar, are very unique in their own right, and it is in this sense that this film comes off as a whole: familiar, yet individual. The same old tropes are there (after all, it is Vegas), but they've all been twisted into some delightfully fresh version which serve to push the movie along at a steady pace.

And speaking of pace, this film simply does not let up. From the moment the plot steps properly into its stride, after the initial rooftop scene, it does not let up; no moment, no line of dialogue, no gag is spared or wasted. The pacing of the film is steady, as I said, but also quite quick. Though it may be too quick for some, it certainly generates an appropriate tone for the film and keeps the audience on their feet, but most importantly, it complements beautifully the dialogue, which is remarkably witty for the duration (99 minutes, though it feels significantly longer, and not for the worse); as testament to that fact, the gentleman behind me found it so witty, he repeated every line he found to his amusement, and of those there were a few.

The acting is of a fairly high standard on the whole: everyone in the film, from Doug (Justin Bartha) to Chow (Ken Jeong) plays their part with such sincerity, it's hard not to get swept away. 

For all this praise however, the film is not perfect, and while the pacing, writing and acting is certainly above par, oddly, there are few particularly memorable lines, something which may be related to the film's greatest flaw, and a significant flaw it is: though it will have you chuckling from start to end (and through the credits), there are no real belly-laughs, and for a comedy film to be successful, they, those big laughs, are critical. Without them, the film seems too transient, too forgetful for its quality, and you'll most likely come out of the theatre without feeling particularly impressed, and it's for this singular reason that I regretfully have to mark The Hangover down to an above average, but still not fantastic, 3.5 stars.



Review of District 9


I once read that we should be sure to cherish profanities as an important part of language, simply because some things cannot be suitably described using conventional language.

Well, holy shit.
Now this is a movie.

Before I go further, I should make it immediately obvious to any of you who are not aware that this is not a movie for children. As far as MA movies go, this is definitely more towards the confronting end of the spectrum, and some scenes will haunt me tonight, I'm sure.

With that said, this is about as good a film as you're going to see any time soon. On an emotional level, I found this to be a very challenging film, and on an intellectual level, stimulating to say the least. The only let down is that the film turns to a (very, very) violent shoot-out towards the end, perhaps the only downside to a piece of cinema expertly written, shot and directed.

This will be a very short review, as I don't want to give much away. The movie is about a man named Wikus van de Merwe (Sharlto Copley), shot in documentary style, who is the leader of an operation to move 1.8 million refugee aliens from a ghetto in Johannesburg called District 9. The Apartheid overtones are obvious and parallels to immigration, especially in countries like Australia, should be drawn from this film.

If anybody gives away much more than that, they are depriving you of the joy (and horror) of this wonderful film. You simply must see it. Don't download it, don't even wait for the DVD, go out and see this movie ASAP. It will challenge you and it will show you what modern day effects can do when working hand in hand with the best storytelling.

An easy 4.5/5 stars. The first modern day sci-fi classic in many years. See this movie!


Further discussion

Certainly one of the best aspects of a group like this is that an actual discussion of the film can take place, and, against my better judgement, I'll level my right of reply against Tim's (fair, I think) review of the film; after all, what more deserving a film than this to discuss?

Tim's comment about this being more a story about humans and humanity than aliens per se is dead on. One of the great misconceptions about science fiction, especially amongst those not familiar with the genre (or familiar only with the blockbusters Hollywood spews out every 6 months) is that it's all about the weird and wonderful, the strange, the alien. All of those are wonderful aspects of the genre, akin in a sense to fantasy, but where sci-fi differs in most cases is that good sci-fi is about people more than anything else, and tries to hold up a mirror to the audience and show them what they're really like (as many great movies of other genres do, too).

Before I continue, I found in my researching the film a good number of references to South African culture which certainly enrich the film for me (Neill Blomkamp is of course South African), especially in regards to character names and especially the usage of the term 'prawn', and while I wouldn't look too deep if you haven't seen the movie yet (stay away from spoilers!) it certainly pays to look into the little details which add a sense of both symbolism and realism to the story. 

With that said, I agree with Tim, to a degree, on the matter of people-explosions (they are too plentiful towards the end), but I take exception to his complaint about a lack of hope. This is certainly a gritty movie, and it deliberately leaves some loose ends in place for effect. The way humans are depicted is ruthless and brutal, and certainly this portrayal is where much of the power of the film comes from -- who is more human? The people or the prawns? -- and I think that the sense of down-to-earth, uncompromising realism further emphasises this. There are no needless artistic flourishes in this movie, no preaching from the altar of the grandness of this or that. There are only people, and people put in a foreign and frightening situation. While I wasn't entirely sure about the portrayal of MNU as such a powerful enterprise, I'm quite happy (or should I say, disappointed) to say that I have every confidence the conclusion of the film was faithful to how real life might have played out.

Which is something to consider in itself.


Review of Up (reply review)

I was in the mood for a little light entertainment today, so I made a relatively unplanned trip to see Up at the cinema. It's marketed as a kid's movie, and I got my share of odd looks when people asked what I was seeing (especially with my newly shaven head) but the decision is not one I regret.

If anything, this is one of the best movies I've seen in a long time (excepting D9). There's an innocent charm to it, and the story itself is marvellous. Trust Pixar to deliver, once again, an absolute gem of a film with an excellent blend of humour, drama and action. 

Like my District 9 review, I don't want to give too much away, so I'll keep the review short, but this is definitely a film worth seeing. Not convinced? I nearly cried twice. Yes, twice. I've seen weepers that only drew sneers from me, but this was a genuinely touching film at times (nicely balanced out by some top-notch jokes), and nearly bringing me to tears is as good evidence of that as you'll find.

Now, is this a modern day classic? No, I don't think they'll be studying it in film classes 30 years from now, but it's definitely a film worth seeing at LEAST once. The pacing is good, and the plot is marvellous (a friend commented that it came together a little too nicely, but I'm not complaining).

4.5/5 stars. It's not perfect, but it's as close as you'll find in this genre for the next few months at least.


Review of Inglourious Basterds


Unless my reading skills betray me, there isn't yet a review of Inglourious Basterds up on the discussion board yet, which I have to admit is a little surprising, but luckily that's not something any of you will have to worry about any longer.

If you want to know what kind of movie this is, it's a Quentin Tarantino movie. If you don't know who Quentin Tarantino is or you haven't seen any of his movies, you're either a child and you really shouldn't be seeing his movies anyway, or you're an adult who really really needs to see his movies. 

So what genre is it? There's a lot of violence and there's a lot of intrigue, and it draws heavily from a number of genres (the spaghetti western influence is apparent from the opening credits) but more than anything this is a movie about movies. It's a film maker's luxury to make a film like this. Tarantino has always made his movies about cinema itself to some degree, but this is the first time that that influence takes the spotlight in some very interesting ways (I won't spoil them for you). 

What do I mean by 'a film maker's luxury'? The trailers (when they used to show) were all about the violence. Don't kid yourself: this is a violent film, and gore there is a-plenty. If you have a weak stomach there are one or two scenes which will have your eyes clamped shut, I can guarantee that. However, the violence comes in high intensity bursts, and looking back doesn't tend to pervade the movie. Rather, a very large portion of the movie is devoted to dialogue, and there are scenes which consist of nothing more than dialogue, some of which contributes minimally to the plot. For most movies this would be a major (not to mention pretentious) drawback, but this movie pulls it off in spades. The reason is can do this is because even when the dialogue seems non-chalant, there's an atmosphere of genuine malice all throughout the film that manages to build suspense where you wouldn't otherwise expect it.

Beyond that, this movie is funny in a typically Tarantino-esque way (ie: in all the wrong ways). When you laugh you may not think you should be, but there's no denying that there is humour in this film, which, given the content, is impressive in itself. 

My review so far has been full of praise and I would say that the film enjoys moments of cinematic genius (the meta-reference to cinema all throughout the film is not something you can fully appreciate upon the first viewing alone), but this is not a perfect film. At 152 minutes in length, this is a hefty long haul, but it certainly won't leave you bored. It's not too long and it doesn't overstay its welcome, but there are moments which drag on a little too long, small lulls here and there which somewhat dampen the experience. This isn't a major drawback so much as a minor complaint. The bigger problem with the film (and how small a problem it is should be apparent) is that there's a certain something missing, a certain intangible je ne sais quoi that made some of his earlier work instant classics. 

But not everything he touches has to turn to gold for it to be any good.

4.5/5 stars. If you like Tarantino, you'll love it. If you don't but you appreciate cinema, you'll at least like it.

By the way, look out for Christoph Waltz as Standartenführer Hans Landa, a character so singularly unique, every moment he's on screen being played by such a fine actor is a delight.


Review of Moon


Moon is a unique movie, but at the same time, it can't seem to shake the ghosts of its predecessors. Indeed, if anything, it welcomes them with arms wide open, and the film is all the better for it. Yes, this is a film for science fiction aficionados and not many others, unapologetically so, a fact which was emphasised when a woman came up to my friends and me outside the theatre and asked if any of us could make heads or tails of the film. We could, but it's certainly easy to see why one mightn't.

The film is deliberately slow-paced, in my opinion perhaps a little slow, and is reluctant to explain too much to the audience, preferring instead to leave the details to be read between the lines, so to say. The pacing does, however, seem to suit the sets (which seem to resemble more than a little those of the 1970s classics, best seen in the vast, desolate, every-so-slightly out-of-focus and undeniably shrunken lunarscapes), which are suitably empty and lifeless.

The performance by Sam Rockwell (as Sam Bell) is perhaps not always perfect, but given the task at hand, he does a remarkable job that rarely lets up, and that of Kevin Spacey (as GERTY) is, as voicing robots goes, just about second to none. 

That's not to say the movie has its faults - I believe it does, and those faults are somewhat crippling in a way. The film is billed as a psychological thriller, but the ever-present sense of foreboding never properly builds to a crescendo, something which gives the film at times the feel of an amateurish homage rather than a film of its own, something which, trust me, it does not deserve. Though the film gives few direct explanations, the ones it does give come too readily, even though there is a lengthy period before any of the "action" starts. 

I know it seems unusual, but I don't have a lot to say about this movie. It's artful, and probably the truest to the hardcore sci-fi genre to have come out in years. For some, that's a turn on, and for others, it's quite the opposite. Whether or not you should see this movie is probably going to be determined by which of those categories you fall into. I would give it 3.5/5 stars, and say only that, had things panned out differently, it could've become a classic - but not every movie has to be a classic for you to enjoy it.


Review of Paranormal Activity


This is a movie which will split viewers. I know this because I witnessed it first hand. Some in the cinema were screaming in terror, others were laughing with amusement (or was it nervous laughter?). I suppose it all depends on what you go in expecting, and what your mindset is.

Paranormal Activity is a film in the style of Blair Witch, with no credits before or after the 'found footage'. The entire film is shot from the perspective of a held camera, something which is surprisingly well-handled. Most of the footage is done on a tripod, and that which isn't seems to be held by someone who has had enough experience with a camera not to result in everything being blurry and exaggerated (ie: about five minutes), something which impressed me greatly. There are a couple of shots relatively early on which might seem as though they couldn't have been shot by either Micah (Micah Sloat) or Katie (Katie Featherston), but given the 86 minute length, those couple are remarkably minor.

It should be noted, on the topic, that the film was done on a shoestring budget. To say that it shows is disingenuous, as, after all, that is the intention of the genre, but worse, it would betray an extremely shallow view of the film. On that note, a number of my comrades, upon leaving the film, complained that it wasn't scary enough, or gory enough. Understandable; it shows few of the hallmarks of the horror genre, and some people won't be scared at all. But I would say that the point is not to leave you with wet pants at the end of the film, but to leave you checking the bolts on the door when you get home. This is not a shock film, it's a suspenseful film, and a reasonably psychological one at that.

That was part of why I liked the film, but far more so was because of the brilliance of the execution. I've already mentioned the camerawork, but going hand in hand with that is the direction, which of course is accompanied by the acting and it with the scripting and so on; all of these aspects work together seamlessly - the acting (especially by Featherston) is brilliant and well-supported by the retroscripting approach to the screenplay. All in all, it produces an extremely convincing and natural feel to the footage that should draw in any viewer who hasn't gone in at the beginning determined not to be. 

The film itself was very good, but if I could point out one (potentially fatal) flaw, it would be that the suspenseful feel ventures too far in to the film and makes the punchy final 20-30 minutes seem a little too contrived. If the earth had started shaking a little sooner (both metaphorically and otherwise) the result may have been close to perfection. 

Instead, I'm happy to give 4/5 stars, and a hearty recommendation to those who think themselves brave enough to handle it.


Note: I also saw Terminator: Salvation and wrote a review for it. However, this was never published and has since been lost. The gist of it, though, was that I was not terribly impressed.

Thanks for reading. I know it's probably too late to be using most of these reviews for cinematic releases, but hey, if you're ever curious about whether or not to buy it on DVD, maybe my reviews could be of some assistance.

So, this is Sights wishing you all a happy New Year, hoping for an entertaining and thought-provoking 2010 in cinema and signing off for the last time in 2009. See you next year.