Top 10 Films for 2007

Well, I think I've seen enough to compile a pretty solid top ten list.

Note: My top ten for 2006 were:
1. Little Children (B+)
2. Little Miss Sunshine (B+)
3. The History Boys (B+)
4. Notes on a Scandal (B+)
5. Dreamgirls (B+)
6. Clerks II (B+)
7. Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest (B+)
8. Letters from Iwo Jima (B+)
9. Hollywoodland (B)
10. The Good Shepherd (B)

Now, my top ten for 2007!
1. There Will Be Blood (A)
2. The Savages (A)
3. I'm Not There (B+)
4. No Country For Old Men (B+)
5. Knocked Up (B+)
6. Elizabeth: The Golden Age (B)
7. Before the Devil Knows You're Dead (B)
8. 3:10 to Yuma (B)
9. Atonement (B)
10. Superbad (B)

So, if you want to see good films, this list is a good start!

Skins

(from Left to right: Joe Dempsie, Mike Bailey, Mitch Hewer, Nicolas Hoult)

Upon the recommendation of a friend last July, I began watching the British teen drama 'Skins' on the internet. It doesn't take long to get addicted.

This teen drama is basically everything an American one isn't. First, the actors are actually teenagers. The oldest actor, Joe Dempsie, was 19 when he first started his role. This is quite different from what we're used to on our teen dramas; people in their mid twenties, sometimes almost thirties, play high school students. This show is authentic in this sense.

Second, it is very realistic. It's true that British culture and American culture are different, but from what I understand, there's not a lot of bullshit behind the authenticity of the plot line.

Third, it is well-written. Our American counterparts are not. As much as we might love them, they are crap.

Fourth, it is uncensored. This is how things really are. This is how they talk. This is what they do. It's not all made up.

SKINS is very authentic, and it is very pleasing.

I hope you might decide to watch it.

Here's the link: http://tvshack.net/tv_shows/Skins/

I warn you, however - YOU WILL BE ADDICTED.

After two seasons of SKINS, the producers are dropping the current storyline and the cast and starting up a whole new one. I hope the new cast can live up to the old one. I expect the RYSH society (Erica Nullin, Nancy Cogann, Kevin Dorder, listen up!!!) to honour this show when the nominations for TV awards are released in June! In particular, Mitch Hewer and Joe Dempsie should be recognized.

I salute the cast and wish them well in the future!

The Savages

“You stole painkillers from a dead woman?”

Death becomes a part of life when you have no choice but to embrace it.

Despite having full knowledge of the discomfort of the small screening room at the Kimbal Theatre, I couldn’t wait any longer to see The Savages. Just for the record – I would gladly sit in those uncomfortable chairs for another two hours just to watch this film again. Tamara Jenkins created a subtly emotional work of art to which many people can relate, and that many others should. The Savages centers on Wendy (Laura Linney) and John (Philip Seymour Hoffman) Savage, two siblings learning to cope with taking care of their ailing father (Philip Bosco). Those who read my reviews know that I despise going into too much detail on the plot, so I will just jump right into the critique!

This film’s obvious theme is death. Death is a part of life, and learning to cope with it can be very tough. The two main characters, Wendy and John, have to embrace the reality that their father is dying, and they furthermore have to figure out for themselves what it will mean. Their father hadn’t been a particularly good parent, but Wendy and John play the part of concerned children that want to make the amends that their father had failed to do over the years. I like that this film doesn’t try to euphemize death. Death is indeed a part of life, and as much as we might hate it, if we don’t embrace it before it embraces us, then there is really no point in being alive in the first place.

The dynamic between Laura Linney and Philip Seymour Hoffman took my breath away. The characters seem like ordinary people. I suppose, in retrospect, they are ordinary people. Maybe that’s why it impressed me – it was real. There are many aspects in the characters that I have seen in my own family – but that’s an entirely different story meant for a more sensational newspaper. The Savage siblings are very much like the siblings many of us have. All of us have to endure someone dying before we experience death ourselves. The real characters and the real situations make this film a real experience, filled with emotion that everyone should expect to experience in the future.

I can’t figure one thing out – Philip Seymour Hoffman was excluded from the Academy Award’s nomination for Best Actor. His performance easily beats out two nominees I have in mind. And, now that I’ve seen all the films that were in the Best Actress category, I think that Laura Linney deserved her long overdue statue. That’s not to take credit away from Marion Cotillard’s brilliant performance in La Vie En Rose.

The acting was brilliant. The story was brilliant. The message was brilliant. The composition was brilliant. I sometimes feel guilty about giving superior grades to films, but this one hold no guilt. This is the second (and probably last) time I will say this about a 2007 film – I give it an A!

Smart People

"You spend $50 on dinner, that's grounds for intercourse."

The world of academia is laden with irretrievably stupid hypocrites.

With a solid cast - Dennis Quad, Thomas Hayden Church, Ellen Page, and Sarah Jessica Parker - Smart People had some good hype. But, the movie fell very short in justifying the hype. It's going to be difficult for me to give a plot synopsis without giving too much information, but here it goes: Smart People follows a six month period in the life of Lawrence Weatherhold (Quaid), a tenured English professor at Carnegie Melon University, and his struggle to find his direction in life, which is interrupted by his adopted brother (Church), his academic-obsessed daughter (Page), and a doctor (Parker), who happens to be a former student that, like all of his students, he doesn't remember.
I usually like to elaborate a little bit on the blot, but, honestly, it is difficult. The plot didn't really have a direction, and it didn't seem like it came to a real conclusion. The film lacks character development; the characters for the most part change in the last few minutes of the film, but it is so abrupt and intentional that any intelligent mind wouldn't fall for it. None of the four main characters are the least bit likable; you leave the cinema with a bad taste in your mouth, and, believe me, it wasn't from the extra grease on the popcorn.
Now, one might try to tell me - Do any of the characters have to be likable to make a good film? The answer is, of course, no. Does the plot need direction and do the characters need development in order to make a good film? If there's no real universal theme that makes your mind ponder other things besides the real lack of anything in the film, then absolutely yes. The plot doesn't have anything to show us that most anyone can relate to. The only thing that this film solidified in me is my real distaste for English. The main character is exactly what you would expect from an English professor, not unlike Jeff Daniels's character in The Squid and the Whale.
What the film lacks in plot, substance, and direction, it makes up for in acting. The acting was very well done. I was afraid that I would only be able to envision Ellen Page as Juno, but as likable as Juno was, Vanessa Weatherhold was more or less despicable. However, as well as the actors tried to carry a film with no plot, no theme, no direction, and no character development, it was a failure from the start when the producers of the film decided to overdose on crack and make the screenplay into a film. Oh well, I guess not all drug binges are fun and dandy.
The movie fell short of every expectation, especially the one that we have with all films - tell us a story, dammit! For that, I give it a C-.

Get Real (1998)

"For over a year after that I thought babies were made when two women tied a man to a bed and covered his willy with ice cream."

Here it is - A movie for gay people that's not satirical or just about sex!

Upon the recommendation of a friend of mine, I, on my most restful weekend to date since I've arrived at William & Mary, decided to watch Get Real, a 1998 British dramedy that focuses on the life of Steven Carter (Ben Silverstone), a closeted gay teenager. The plot builds up to Steven's acceptance of his sexuality, built on the experiences with his secret lover, John Dixon (Brad Gorton), the head boy and star athlete - the so-called heterosexual paradigm.
I will be the first to admit that I have not seen very many films with gay themes. In fact, anyone who knows me probably knows that I have nothing friendly to say about one of the most highly regarded films of this genre, Ang Lee's Brokeback Mountain. But I will not be ashamed to admit that I found this film to be very touching and very well written. The obvious point of this film is to ease the taboo on homosexuality. We have come a long way since 1998. This film shows us that everyone is human, and everyone loves.
The real bulk of the film can be summed up by it's most memorable quote, made by Steven Carter at the end of the film - "It's only love. What's everyone so scared of?". Being friends with quite a few homosexuals, I would certainly like to ask that question as well. Love is love, and, it really is all around. This film does a very good job of criticizing not only the fear of this love, but the actual fear of loving (I won't go into details on this, as I would hate to spoil any of the plot!).
Acting? I was impressed with the entire ensemble. The cast was very well orchestrated, and the parts were done spectacularly. In particular, Ben Silverstone, the lead actor, impressed me. His character develops dramatically throughout the film, and I imagine it must have been difficult to keep Steven Carter three dimensional and consistent without completely throwing the nature of the character off. You have the same likable character throughout the film, and he becomes progressively more likable as he matures. The character is played with such emotion that you feel like you may have known Steven for years. It was well played!
The film was funny at times, it was happy at times, and it was sad at times. You really do learn a valuable lesson from this film, and you end up feeling good for learning it in the end. I give this film a B+.

No Country For Old Men

“What’s the most you ever lost on a coin toss?”

The Coens’ new cat-and-mouse thriller re-explores their favourite themes

The Coens have a thing about free will and chance – one would be incredibly hard pressed to find one of their films that doesn’t at least touch these ideas. No Country For Old Men is no exception. Set in 1970 Texas, this film follows characters that are linked to a drug deal gone wrong. The film’s strong cast includes a resourceful Texan with an illicit bag of money (Josh Brolin), the sociopath killer who has claims on it (Javier Bardem), and a sheriff trying to protect lives (Tommy Lee Jones).

One thing that does impress me about this film is its strange ability to keep the viewer interested, despite the fact that there isn’t a whole lot to be said about the characters or the plot. Quite simply, they’re a little bit bland. It is true that Javier Bardem’s character, Anton Chigurgh, may be the most intriguing and frightening killer since Hannibal Lecter, but I would go as far to suggest that the haircut is a huge factor; without it, I’m not entirely sure that Chigurgh would be a character to write home about. Nonetheless, I give Mr Bardem the credit he deserves for a role well played.

When I saw this movie in the cinema, I noticed one huge similarity this movie shares with its brother film, Fargo: I think this movie is meant to be funny. We all remember Fargo. There was blood, spouses that put hits on each other, corrupt cops. But, didn’t the Minnesota accents make us laugh? It has been interpreted by film critics as a thriller and a dark comedy. This is exactly the same way. But, instead of Minnesotan accents, we have Texan accents that are just as funny. I had to hold back a couple laughs, in fear of being the only sick-minded creep to laugh in the packed cinema. But, you decide for yourself!

As mentioned before, this movie explores themes not new to the Coens – free will and chance. The film concentrates more on the latter; the killer Chigurgh carries around a coin, often basing his decisions on the flip of the coin. Though we never know the ambivalence that warrants the coin toss, we are lead to believe that it is nonetheless significant. Free will? It’s given to us very plainly that things could be different if the characters make alternative choices – the most important of which involves Llewellyn Moss’s (Josh Brolin) and his wife Norma Jean (Kelly MacDonald). The themes are much more clearly presented in this film, and they now seem even more intriguing. I’m beginning to wonder what made this film so much more interesting. But, to its credit, it was more enjoyable to watch than any other Coen film, which is certainly saying something.

Overall, this film had good acting. It had a bland plot and bland characters that seemed very interesting. It was substantive, but it’s certainly the last time the Coens can make a film about chance or free will; it’s time for something new. I wanted to see it again after the first time, because it was thought provoking. It certainly got be interested, and, for that, I give it a B+.

Run, Fatboy, Run

"That was the second most disgusting fluid I've ever had in my eye"

David Schwimmer’s directorial debut is a fair attempt to regain his old reputation

Run, Fatboy, Run. At first, I thought it might be a sort of spoof of one of my favourite films, Run Lola Run. And although the opening scene was undoubtedly a nod in that direction, the actual mass of the film was far from it. That’s not to discourage you from seeing the film, but, naturally, a comedy of this nature usually lacks real substance. This one certainly attempts to put meaning into it, but the message is distilled through the heavy comedic undertow.

The film follows Dennis (Simon Pegg) and his attempts to win back his ex-fiancée Libby (Thandie Newton), who he had left at the altar five years previous. Simon is an irresponsible man with an unimpressive job as a security guard at a ladies’ lingerie store. After his fiancée meets Whit (Hank Azaria) and begins dating him, Dennis decides to mimic his competition and run a marathon. In the end, it becomes more of a test of his will. The main message of the film – persevere!

Perseverance…is that a novel concept? Of course not; we’ve seen it several times before in several other films. That is why I say this movie lacks substance; it tells us nothing new. But, in its defense, I doubt it was ever meant to. Director David Schwimmer is most recognizable for his comedic role in the TV series Friends. Although it’s been a while since we’ve seen anything out of him, I can’t deny that David Schwimmer’s directorial debut is a fair attempt to regain his old reputation. The comedy was incredibly witty, much in the same fashion as Shawn of the Dead. Furthermore, the cast consists mostly of Brits, who are naturally wittier than most. They give a great flow to the film; I think everything is funnier in a British accent (The Royle Family, anyone?). Lastly, I’d like to comment on Simon Pegg. He’s become one of the new recognized faces for comedies in the U.S., but I saw something very different in him in this film. Although this film lacked substance, it didn’t lack emotion. Pegg’s portrayal of a man that wants to change was funny, of course, but, it was also believable. I doubt Pegg will deviate from his comfort zone of comedies, but I saw a lot of potential in him, and I think we can expect some pretty great things out of him in the years to come.

Run, Fatboy, Run is definitely worth the comedic value for the entrance fee, and it was an overall pleasant film to watch. For this, I give it a B.

There Will Be Blood

“I am a false prophet; God is a superstition!”

There Will Be Blood is Paul Thomas Anderson’s Sistine Chapel

Based on the novel Oil by Upton Sinclair, Paul Thomas Anderson’s masterpiece There Will Be Blood follows the life of oil man Daniel Plainview (played by Daniel Day-Lewis) and his business pursuits over the course of the early 20^th Century. The story follows his life over the course of two decades, concentrating on his wealth and relations with those around him, including his son and the charismatic preacher Eli Sunday (played by Paul Dano).

Without spoiling the incredibly simple plot of the film, I want to give an idea of what this film does for the viewer. The most underlying theme in this film was greed. How much of your own humanity are you willing to sacrifice to get exactly what you want exactly when you want it? Daniel Day-Lewis, arguably one of the most brilliant actors in the industry, radiates every aspect of greed imaginable through his character and effectively makes the audience empathize with many of his actions. One of his actions in pursuing his interests involves joining an evangelical church in order to placate the religious community of the town he plans to drill. The preacher of the church, Eli Sunday, is also revealed to be equally as greedy. Paul Dano gives an explosive performance as the charismatic preacher, whose character is seems easily less human from the beginning than the obviously greedy Plainview. The highlight of the nearly three-hour-long film is the last scene – where the incredible chemistry between Daniel Day-Lewis and Paul Dano explodes on screen, and resonating the quote for which this film will surely be remembered – “I am a false prophet; God is a superstition!”. While Daniel Day-Lewis easily earned his Oscar, I find it shameful that Paul Dano wasn’t recognized this year with a Best Supporting Actor nomination; his work was explosive, real, and inspiring.

The film itself is should be a definite awe for film students and those who appreciate the actual art of filmmaking. Paul Thomas Anderson created a masterpiece down to every detail. Obviously, he did his homework in reproducing the visuals of the time period. The costumes, scenery, the way people talked, props, and virtually everything else that might overt your eyes from Daniel Day-Lewis was done so meticulously that one might think he is actually in the setting. All of this moves along very well with the plot, and the obvious visual motif – the oil – complements the most underlying theme of the film. The entire composition, from beginning to end, was absolutely breathtaking, and I would not be surprised if some years down the line critics and scholars begin likening the composition of this film to that of Citizen Kane; let me be one of the firsts!

I am very hard to please, and I have been known to be a harsh grader with films, so please take note this rare occurrence: This film has pleased me on so many levels. And, for this, I give it a solid A.