Top 10 Films of 2009

And now the most important list you'll read all... day. All in all I was kind of underwhelmed by what 2009 had to offer, but I suppose we're still feeling the aftershocks of the WGA strike. Anyway, here they are, my top 10 of 2009:


#10: The Road
A haunting and intense film that I haven't been able to stop thinking about since seeing it. It seems to have gotten lost in the shuffle where awards are concerned, but I think it'll stand the test of time a lot better than some of the year's more acclaimed films.


#9: Pontypool
A stark, stripped down monster movie about a community undone by a virus spread through the English language. Stephen McHattie is great in the lead role as a DJ trying to piece together the horror occurring outside from the (relative) safety of his booth.


#8: Inglorious Basterds
Quentin Tarantino's latest rewrites the rules about war movies and entertains from beginning to end. Per usual, his casting is spot on and the film features two of my favourite performances of the year courtesy of the much recognized Christoph Waltz and the criminally under appreciated Melanie Laurent.


#7: Bright Star
Jane Campion's beautiful (visually and narratively) movie about John Keats' relationship with Fannie Brawne deserves a lot more attention that it's received. Same goes for Abbie Cornish's wonderful, nuanced performance as Brawne.


#6: Precious
One of the more divisive films of the last year, this saga of a life of poverty and abuse is sometimes hard to watch. What makes it really worth it is the extraordinary performances of the cast. Mo'Nique and Gabourey Sidibe are almost assured of getting Oscar nominations and part of me kind of hopes that Mariah Carey gets one too, since she appears to be showing up drunk to every award ceremony lately.


#5: (500) Days of Summer
This is not a love story, but it is one of the great films about unrequited love. Joseph Gordon-Levitt and Zooey Deschanel render charming and effective performances, alternating easily between the comedy and the drama of their characters' brief relationship.


#4: Polytechnique
A stark, powerful film about one of the greatest tragedies in Canadian history. Available in both English and French versions, the importance of this film cannot be underestimated. It's a great tribute to 14 women senselessly murdered simply for being women.


#3: An Education
A star is born in Carey Mulligan, playing a girl wise beyond her years in some respects, but hopelessly naive in others. Directed by Lone Scherfig from a screenplay adapted by Nick Hornby, An Education is clever, well-paced and often delightful.


#2: Moon
Why isn't Sam Rockwell a bigger star? If there was ever any doubt that he deserves it, his dual performances in Moon ought to put it to rest. This wonderful tribute to 1960s and 70s era science fiction is one of the best films of the last decade, let alone the last year.


#1: The Hurt Locker
Without question, the best movie of 2009. Kathryn Bigelow's war drama is a winner on every level, with the performances of Jeremy Renner, Anthony Mackie and Brian Geraghty being of particular note. War movies don't get much better than this.

Review: The Road (2009)

* * * 1/2
Director: John Hillcoat
Starring: Viggo Mortensen, Kodi Smit-McPhee

Every movie I see (and story I read) set in a post-apocalyptic world really just solidifies for me that when the end comes I need to either be dead already or be amongst those who die instantly at the moment of catastrophe, because I really don’t have the skill set or the mental/emotional fortitude to survive the barren and treacherous landscape. I could barely make it through this movie, as good as it is. In fact, it’s probably the best movie that I never, ever want to see again.

Set sometime in the future when disaster has turned the earth into an ashy wasteland, The Road follows a man (Viggo Mortensen) and his boy (Kodi Smit-McPhee) as they travel towards the west coast in the hope of finding a warmer climate. They have a shopping cart full of odds and ends that they’ve picked up on the way and a gun with two bullets left. As the earth is no longer able to sustain plant life, nearly all animals are dead, and most food rations have long since been pillaged, the roads are full of roving gangs who have turned to cannibalism. It’s to the film’s credit that the mood is so immediately and effectively established that even though the Man and the Boy come into contact with one of these gangs early in the film and you know objectively as a viewer that nothing too bad can happen at this point, it still elicits a genuine and intense feeling of tension.

The Man and the Boy will encounter many gruesome sights along the way as human beings become more and more divorced from their humanity. Though the Man tells the Boy that they are the good guys, he is not immune to behaving in ways that the Boy thinks wrong. His initial refusal to share food with an old man (Robert Duvall in a brief but beautiful performance) and his retribution against a man who briefly and unsuccessfully robs them prompts the Boy to declare that his father can’t even tell who is good and who is bad anymore. The turning point for the Man seems to be the moment when he discards his wallet with the picture of his wife (Charlize Theron) and his wedding ring – the only two things other than the Boy that he has to remind him of his former life. Interspersed throughout the film are flashbacks involving the wife, who is unable to cope with what has happened and with what she believes will happen in the future. Eventually she leaves them and, in a haunting shot, disappears into the darkness and snow to die alone. The Man is troubled by the fact that he could not give her a reason to live and with the nagging suspicion that perhaps she was right.

The film is obviously very dark and it deals with some very heavy themes. The central question seems to be whether it is morally right of the Man to keep the Boy alive at all under these circumstances. His wife is dead, the earth is dying, and there are constantly moments when he thinks that he will have to use his last bullet to kill the Boy just to prevent him from being tortured, harvested and eventually killed by one gang or another. More importantly still, he is himself dying, coughing up blood and limping forward more slowly with each step. He tells himself that he is preparing the Boy to take care of himself after he’s gone, but does he really think that the Boy, all alone in a world full of blood thirsty marauders, can really survive? The old man refers to death as a luxury that one shouldn’t ask for in times like this, but couldn’t it also be a mercy?

Mortensen carries the film with a grim determination. Gaunt and haggard looking, he is nevertheless able to bring some degree of warmth to the Man, even at the worst of times. After narrowly escaping a gang of cannibals, the Man returns to collect their discarded belongings, particularly the children’s books that he reads to the Boy at night. He is a father first and foremost and strives to make the situation bareable for his son, putting on a brave face and summoning up all of his strength to carry on. For a brief spell they find a comfortable shelter where they’re able to bathe and cut their hair and feel human again. He smokes a cigarette and drinks a glass of whisky and remarks that the Boy (born after the beginning of the catastrophe) probably thinks he’s from another world. The Boy affectionately agrees and for a moment it is almost as if they are living a normal, happy life. The Boy may be more vulnerable to predators, but it is the Man who suffers the most because he remembers how life used to be before everything collapsed around him.

Director John Hillcoat, working with an adaptation by Joe Penhall, has made a remarkably well-crafted film. He’s very good at maintaining and nurturing the tension throughout the story so that it doesn’t peter out before it gets to the end and he wisely shies away from getting too graphic when it comes to the more horrific elements of the story. It is bleak, but it doesn’t glorify the violence, suggesting it with broad strokes rather than letting us have all the gory details. It doesn’t need those details – it conveys the idea of them more effectively than a direct visual ever could.

As I said at the beginning, as much as I admire The Road’s achievements, I can’t see myself ever watching it again. Some would argue that that’s a failing on the part of the film, but I would say that some works of art leave such an indelible impression that they only need to be experienced once. Certainly I would recommend this one, though I don't know that the winter time is the best time to see it.

Review: Precious (2009)

* * * *
Director: Lee Daniels
Starring: Gabourey Sidibe, Mo'Nique, Paula Patton, Mariah Carey

“Why me?” These are the words that Clareece “Precious” Jones (Gabourey Sidibe) writes in her notebook towards the end of the film, the only words that can even remotely encapsulate her feelings after a fresh tragedy is added to the already towering stack that she has to contend with. Hers is a life full of obstacles and challenges and horror, but she somehow manages to persevere and keep herself from sinking beneath the weight of it. Precious the film has scenes of unfathomable ugliness, but Precious the character is ultimately triumphant.

The story begins with 16-year-old Precious being pulled from class to see the principal, who opens their conversation with the words, “Hello Clareece,” and then proceeds to show that she has about 10 times less warmth than Hannibal Lecter. Precious is pregnant with her second child, both children the result of rape at the hands of her father. Due to her condition she’s going to be expelled, though the school will make arrangements for her to transfer to an alternative school. Despite the fact that she’s been given good grades, including an A- in English, she is illiterate and confesses to her alternative school teacher Ms. Rain (Paula Patton) that all words look the same to her. While Ms. Rain offers her support and encouragement, her mother Mary (Mo’Nique), undermines her at every turn. The only reason she lets Precious go to school at all is because it’s a requirement for receiving welfare.

At home Precious is subjected to physical, sexual and emotional abuse at Mary’s hands. She often escapes into a fantasy world where she imagines herself a superstar, beloved by all and loved in particular by her “light-skinned boyfriend with good hair.” While the harshness of her reality continuously intrudes on these interludes, the fact that she’s able to engage in this fantasy life at all demonstrates just how strong a person she is. That after all that she has endured she can still dream of better things for herself and imagine that she deserves it despite living with someone who tells her every day that she’s worthless, is nothing short of remarkable. Even more remarkable still is how she comes to realize that she’s doesn’t have to be rich and famous and have that boyfriend in order to be worthy of love and respect, but that she’s already worthy just as she is.

Of all the films to come out this year, Precious is probably the one that has sparked the most intense debate. Much of the criticism arises from the idea that the white male dominated film industry and critics are only willing to enthusiastically embrace films about people of color when the story is driven by suffering. This is a valid argument that can (and has) also been applied to other critically lauded and much rewarded films like Slumdog Millionaire and The Color Purple. Films that feature positive depictions of the lives of people of color are few and far between and tend to go untouched by the Hollywood mainstream, which makes the acclaim for films like Precious seem more glaring. However, I don’t believe that those facts should be allowed to obscure the questions that should really be at issue: is the film well made and does it display enough skill to warrant the amount of discussion that it has provoked? I think that it is and that it does. I don’t believe that the story panders to the lowest common denominator or promotes a stereotypical view of African-Americans. Rather, I think it gives agency to people who are more typically ignored. Of all the things various people do to help Precious, the most important is that they listen to her because it isn’t until she is given the opportunity to voice her experiences that she starts to actively take steps to make her reality good instead of relegating happiness to the world of fantasy. Precious does not represent all African-Americans, but her experiences are reflective of the reality of a lot of people (regardless of race) and to write the film off as nothing more than “tragedy porn” designed to please the white hegemony is to perpetuate the dismissal of an already disenfranchised segment of the population.

All of this is not to say that Precious is a perfect film; there are things about it that are problematic. There is a fairytale element to it that undercuts its rawness (there are a lot of Preciouses in the world, but few receive as much help as this particular Precious does) and its treatment of race is a bit suspect. The people who are good to Precious – Ms. Rain, Mrs. Weiss (Mariah Carey), Nurse John (Lenny Kravitz) – are people with light complexions. Although I haven’t read Sapphire’s book Push, my understanding is that this is a fairly significant departure, at least where the character of Ms. Rain is concerned. While in and of itself this might not be such a big deal, when you consider it in conjunction with Precious’ deep fixation on the idea that lightness is equal to worthiness or goodness (at one point she looks in a mirror and sees a blonde white girl looking back), it’s certainly enough to give you pause. While Precious is ultimately her own hero, the physical appearance of the people who want to help and save her does reinforce a very negative - and in the case of Precious self-loathing - view of race.

Sidibe, who makes her film debut here, is an amazing find as Precious and she and Mo'Nique render brave performances which hold absolutely nothing back. The role of Mrs. Weiss was originally slated to go to Helen Mirren but is played by Mariah Carey, which might sound like a downgrade but ends up working marvellously. There is a scene at the end between Sidibe, Mo'Nique and Carey which is, without question, one of the best acted scenes I've seen all year. Director Lee Daniels makes some stylistic choices that I found distracting (particularly his use of montage), but when he simply lets the actors act and lets us just watch them, the result is so completely absorbing that you forget you're watching a film. I was somewhat reluctant to see this movie because it looked so heavy, but I'm so glad that I did. While it is indeed very heavy, that's far from the whole story and Precious will surprise you with what it's capable of.

Review: An Education (2009)

* * * *
Director: Lone Scherfig
Starring: Carey Mulligan, Peter Sarsgaard

There’s more than one way to get an education – the formal, institutionalized way that will prepare you for the workforce, and the unofficial, haphazard way that will prepare you for life. Neither is simple as Jenny, the clever, spirited heroine of An Education, can attest. In that role Carey Mulligan shines, a total natural as she navigates Jenny’s journey through the perilous final stages of the transition from child to adult. “I feel very old,” she says towards the end, “but not very wise.” I think she’s giving herself far too little credit.

The film takes place in the 1960s and opens at an all girls’ school where posture is a part of the curriculum right along with cooking and the lesser subjects of English and Math. It is hoped by Jenny and her parents that getting good grades at such a prestigious school will help her get into Oxford. For similar reasons she has learned to play the cello, hoping to impress the admissions people with such a refined hobby. The importance of creating this image is stressed by Jenny’s father (Alfred Molina), who believes that it’s important to put on a show but doesn’t believe that the value of what Jenny is learning is the knowledge itself. Knowledge itself is secondary, which is why she has to be able to say that she can play the cello but she’s not actually allowed to practice it because the important part (learning to play) is over.

Waiting at a bus stop in the rain with her cello she meets David (Peter Sarsgaard), who charms her into letting him give her a ride home. It isn’t difficult for him to impress her because not only does he have a nice car and know about all the beautiful things that Jenny wants to know about (art, music, good food, etc.), but he’s so different from the boys that Jenny has heretofore been surrounded by. Graham (David Beard), a boy her own age who likes her, is easily flustered by her father and seems childlike in comparison to David, who is so self-assured and cool that he ends up making her father nervous and eager to impress. If Jenny were older and had more experience, she’d be wary of how expertly David is able to manipulate her very protective, very guarded parents. If someone seems to know the exact right thing to say at all times, they’ve probably had a lot of practice.

As Jenny and David’s relationship grows more serious, her future at Oxford becomes more obscure. To her shock, this is just fine by her father who has so strictly directed her life up until this point for the purpose of getting into Oxford, and she realizes that what she’d always been told was her future was in reality just a backup plan until she could find a suitable man to take care of her. “What was the point?” she asks repeatedly, wondering why, if all she was ever really expected to be was a housewife, all those other things were necessary. At a certain point she finds herself having to choose between David and Oxford and in light of all that she’s just learned, it seems to be an easy choice. The consequences of that choice, however, prove to be a very hard lesson indeed.

The screenplay by Nick Hornby is strong and, coupled with the direction by Lone Scherfig, allows the characters plenty of room for layers and details. David is not a cardboard villain, though we never really trust him for obvious reasons. He seems genuinely to care about Jenny and be affected by how things turn out and it’s surely evidence of Sarsgaard’s skill that you end up feeling a bit sorry for David – not as sorry as you end up feeling for other characters, of course, but at a certain point being able to feel anything for him is a victory on Sarsgaard’s part. There’s something very sad about David, whose existence is built entirely on illusions and deceit, and it’s heartbreaking (though expected) when Jenny finds that out.

I don’t think there’s anything I can say about Mulligan’s performance that hasn’t already been said, and better, by other people. She’s a star – charismatic, nuanced, and assured. She seems to inhabit Jenny easily and her instincts as an actor are solid. Molina, as her father, is wonderful, particularly in scenes where he’s dealing either directly or indirectly with David. David makes him nervous, not because of his interest in Jenny, but because he seems to come from a higher social order. He wants to impress David and he’s so taken in by David’s flashiness that he practically shoves Jenny into David’s arms. His speech to Jenny about how he, too, has been hurt in the situation is really moving and one of the film’s best moments. I would be remiss, in speaking of supporting performances, if I didn’t also mention Rosamond Pike, who I thought was absolutely delightful as David’s faux sophisticate, blank slate friend Helen. The expressions on her face alone were enough to win me over, but she gets some great (and ridiculous) lines as well.

I think, in the end, that An Education’s greatest strength lies in its ability to do what so few of its characters seem able: to recognize that knowledge can be valuable in and of itself. The lessons Jenny learns are painful and in some respects hold her back, but she knows more than she did before about things that can’t be gleaned from books. It might not help her at Oxford, but there will be life after Oxford and she’ll be ready for it.

LAMBScore:

Review: Bright Star (2009)

* * * 1/2
Director: Jane Campion
Starring: Abbie Cornish, Ben Wishaw, Paul Schneider

Period pieces tend to be very somber affairs, full of repressed passions and strict social rules. Jane Campion’s new film Bright Star, though anchored by a thread of restrained eroticism and shaped by the tragic circumstances of the poet John Keats, is a surprisingly joyful movie, matching light for dark at every turn. It is a beautiful looking and beautifully rendered piece that hits all the right notes and features a terrific and engaging lead performance from Abbie Cornish.

Cornish stars as Fanny Brawne, the woman to whom Keats (Ben Wishaw) was loosely engaged at the time of his death. I say “loosely” because it seems apparent to everyone that Keats will not live to marry her and that that is why the engagement has been allowed at all. Underappreciated in his own time, Keats is in no financial position to take a wife, though in a different era Fanny herself could have supported them through her work as a designer and seamstress. Throughout the film she’s shown sewing and embroidering and she delights in revealing to people that she’s made her dresses herself and points out the various stylistic innovations she’s created. The costumes in the film (both Fanny’s and those of the other characters) are indeed exquisite and come courtesy of Janet Patterson who also did the costumes for Campion’s The Piano and The Portrait of a Lady.

Fanny and Keats are introduced through the poet Charles Brown (Paul Schneider), who is a neighbor to the Brawnes’ and a friend to Keats. Fanny and Brown have a contentious relationship defined by a dislike for each other that, were it not for Keats, may have evolved in the manner of Elizabeth Bennett and Mr. Darcy. Instead Fanny and Brown fight for Keats’ attention with Fanny winning, though perhaps only by default. Brown’s affection for Keats is not romantic but rather stems from his recognition of Keats’ superior abilities and his desire to see those abilities appreciated by others. Brown’s devotion is less to the man than it is to the man’s gift as an artist and his admission near the end, when he repeats “I failed John Keats!” is wrenching. Schneider is perfect in this role and brings an edge to it that balances the film and keeps it from dipping into sentimentality.

Of course, the driving force of the film is Cornish, who makes Fanny into a lively and clever heroine, but also one plagued by insecurities and doubt. Fanny excels at a certain plane of social interaction – flirting, as Brown condescendingly points out to Keats – but is occasionally at a loss when a situation calls for a different tenor. At one point Keats asks her if she’s in love with Brown. The answer is no but she stands there dumbstruck, unable to engage with him in this way. As the film progresses, however, she gradually matures so that we believe that the girl who started the film thinking poetry a somewhat useless exercise can now recite Keats’ verses with an appropriate amount of gravitas and feeling. She and Wishaw (who, it must be noted, gets to do little more than alternate between looking lovelorn and sickly) have a nice chemistry, though to be honest there’s more fire between Cornish and Schneider. Still, it’s believable enough that losing Keats would inspire her to spend the rest of her days walking the same paths she walked with him as the film gives their relationship enough space to really develop and evolve.

As a filmmaker, Campion is someone I tend to run hot and cold on, finding that sometimes she uses a mallet where a hammer would suffice. With this film, however, she seems to exercise a great deal of restraint, largely letting the images speak for themselves rather than underscoring them with an overbearing narrative commentary to make sure that you get it. One thing I always find praise worthy about her work is the way that they look, and her period pieces in particular tend to be realized with what I would describe as a painter’s aesthetic, rich in color and finely contrasted. This film looks gorgeous and has a haunting quality that deepens its impact. It's a beautiful, wonderful film.

Canadian Film Review: Polytechnique (2009)

* * * *
Director: Denis Villeneuve
Starring: Maxim Gaudette, Karine Vanasse, Sebastien Huberdeau

Mass murder is of course horrific under any circumstances but there is something particularly scarring about school shootings. What does it say about your city or your nation if the people in it aren’t safe to go to school? I was still in high school when the Columbine massacre took place and though I can’t remember that particular day, I can vividly recall the 1st anniversary because a rumour had gone around that some kids were going to use that day to recreate it. Consequently only about two dozen students showed up and walking through the building was like walking through a ghost town, it was so quiet. Polytechnique’s most startling quality is its silence, which seems to envelop everything and gives scenes an intensely nightmarish feeling.

For the most part the film takes place on December 6, 1989 when a gunman (Maxim Gaudette) – unnamed in the film so as not to glorify him – walked into the École Polytechnique de Montreal and gunned down 14 women. His targets were women, specifically those he assumed to be feminists, his suicide letter stating explicitly: “If I commit suicide today... it is not for economic reasons (for I have exhausted my financial means, even refusing jobs) but for political reasons. Because I have decided to send the feminists, who have always ruined my life, to their Maker.” Through a voice-over the film reveals the full text of this note and this is as close as we ever come to understanding the killer. The film does not attempt to explain his actions but instead focuses on the effect of those actions on the people left behind in the aftermath.

The story is seen largely through two sets of eyes. The first is Jean-Francois (Sebastien Huberdeau), an engineering student who is close friends with two of his female classmates. The killer’s first stop on his rampage is their classroom, where he orders the men and the women to opposite sides of the room and then orders the men out. The men leave, none more reluctantly than Jean-Francois, who runs through the building to alert security to call the police. By this time the killer has moved on and shot-up the cafeteria and made his way into another classroom, killing more women and then himself. Jean-Francois behaves bravely, attempting to administer first aid to one of the wounded women while the killer is still roaming the halls and shooting, but he is wracked with guilt over having left the classroom in the first place and it ruins his life.

The other character is Valerie (Karine Vanasse), an engineering student who is severely injured in the attack but not killed. Though the film addresses the political element early through the killer’s note, it makes clear that his attitudes towards women are ultimately only part of a larger problem. Before the killer is even a blip on anyone’s radar, Valerie has an interview for an engineering internship during which the interviewer displays the kind of casual sexism that is still fairly common today, though not necessarily as openly stated. He expresses surprise at the area of engineering she’s chosen, declaring that women usually go in an “easier” direction. When Valerie explains that she’s always wanted to be an aerospace engineer, he clarifies that he meant easier in terms of raising a family and not in terms of intelligence or drive, which actually doesn’t make his comment better. While his attitude is of course nowhere near as harmful as the killer's actions, the fact that this attitude exists at all and that feminism exists, in part, as a response to it gives the killer a foundation for his hate.

Director Denis Villeneuve tells the story in a minimalist, no frills kind of way. When it comes to the killing spree, he uses only what’s known to be true and uses even these facts sparingly. For example, the killer is shown uttering his last words but the scene is muted so that we don’t hear them. The reasoning behind this, I would imagine, is the same as the reasoning behind not publicizing his name, which is to deny him agency. For similar reasons, the film is photographed in black and white to downplay the gore and sidestep the possibility of glorifying the killing spree. These are all the right decisions in this particular case and as horrific as the story is, it is told in a sensitive and powerful way. Polytechnique is a moving film that, despite its subject matter, ultimately ends on a hopeful note. It's a fitting tribute to the 14 slain women and the families they left behind.

Review: Inglorious Basterds (2009)

* * * 1/2
Director: Quentin Tarantino
Starring: Brad Pitt, Christoph Waltz, Mélanie Laurent

Tarantino’s latest is a glorious mess of a movie that plays entirely by its own rules. It isn’t a film of any great depth, but as glossy summer entertainment goes, I don’t know that you can do much better than this one. It’s a violent, darkly comic, beautiful looking film that occasionally goes off the rails but ultimately makes for a great time at the movies.

The film begins like a western, immediately evoking early scenes from Sergio Leone’s Once Upon A Time In The West (it begins, in fact, with the words “Once upon a time... in Nazi occupied France”). In the distance a dairy farmer sees the SS coming down the long dirt road. He sends one of his daughters to get water so that he can wash up. They wait anxiously as the Germans take their time and eventually the farmer finds himself sitting at his table with Col. Hans Landa (Christoph Waltz in a disarmingly and sinisterly joyful performance), who coaxes him into revealing the whereabouts of the Drefyus family, whom he has been hiding. The family is slaughtered save for Shosanna (Mélanie Laurent), whom Landa allows to escape and who lives for years by hiding in plain sight in Paris.

Elsewhere a group of Jewish soldiers, mostly American, have been assembled under the command of Lt. Aldo Raine (Brad Pitt) for the purpose of killing Nazis. Dropped into occupied France in 1941, the group quickly gains a reputation for brutality and the Nazi high command becomes increasingly desperate to catch them. By 1944 the group is in league with British film critic turned soldier Archie Hicox (Michael Fassbender) and German film star/spy Bridget von Hammersmark (Diane Kruger) in a plot to take out some of the major Nazis at a Paris film premiere. The premiere, as it happens, will take place at a theatre which Shosanna has inherited and she has a plan of her own to kill some Nazis.

The film boasts a wealth of characters with the typical Tarantino flair. One of the things I love about Tarantino’s films in general is that you never walk away from one thinking about that one really memorable character because there are always about a dozen really memorable characters and the casting is always perfect. I went into the film with a bit of trepidation regarding Pitt because the trailers made it look like he was really hamming it up. As it turns out he is hamming it up, but it works well with the overall, over the top feel of the film and I really can’t imagine the character being played any other way or by any other actor. However, as good as Pitt is and as extraordinary as Waltz – whose performance has been garnering the most attention – is, the real standout for me was Laurent, whose Shosanna is the heart of the story. Her performance, which is very understated and grounded, is on the other end of the spectrum from Pitt’s, giving the film a nice feeling of balance.

The film has been accused by some of trivializing World War II in general and the Holocaust specifically because there is nary a mention of The Final Solution. I don’t really think this accusation is fair because, as anyone who has seen the movie can tell you, the war as we know it isn’t really the war being dealt with in this film. Inglorious Basterds exists outside of history and in an alternate reality. Besides which, any direct dealing with the Holocaust wouldn’t fit with the film’s overall tone, which is darkly comedic. One of my favourite shots occurs during a scene when Hitler (Martin Wuttke) rails at his officers to find the Basterds. In the background there's painter creating a giant Hitler painting who keeps turning to study him and capture some nuance of his person. As with all Tarantino’s films, the beauty is in the smaller details.

If there is an underlying socio-political meaning to the film, I would argue that it doesn’t have to do with the darkness of the human soul but rather with the power of film itself. Film was an invaluable medium for Hitler and the Nazis, particularly the propaganda films directed by Leni Riefenstahl, who gets a few mentions here. The plot conceived by Shosanna involves locking the top Nazi brass in the theatre and then setting her stock of nitrate film prints on fire. Film, which helped give birth to the Nazi movement, is now tasked with being an agent of its destruction and thus Inglorious Basterds might be read as working to reclaim the medium from some of its worst abusers.

By and large, the film really worked for me, although there are two things that didn’t. First is the film’s use of David Bowie’s song “Cat People,” which I found jarring and really took me out of the movie, although this anachronism perhaps eases the way for the grand inaccuracy of the film’s finale. The second thing has to do with the film within the film. Much of Basterds is subtitled because the German characters speak German and the French characters speak French rather than falling back on the old movie standard of having characters speak accented English. Yet, in spite of this, the German propaganda film within the film is in English. That really bugged me. That being said, however, these are very small quibbles with a film that is overall incredibly entertaining.

Canadian Film Review: Pontypool (2009)

* * * 1/2
Director: Bruce McDonald
Starring: Stephen McHattie, Lisa Houle, Georgina Reilly, Hrant Alianak

Pontypool takes a page out of the Jaws handbook, providing a vague, mostly unseen danger to our heroes that looms all the larger for its near total absence from the screen. If you’ve seen Jaws, you know how awesomely effective that method of storytelling is. What we see might be scary but it will never be as scary as what we can’t see and so it is with Pontypool which finds a radio show host and his two producers being bombarded with stories of strange and violent behaviour on the other side of town and knowing that this undefined threat is moving closer and closer to them.

The film takes place over the course of a few hours on a snowy, dreary day in Pontypool, Ontario. Radio show host Grant Mazzy (Stephen McHattie) has a strange encounter on the road, which leaves him shaken up and which he decides to discuss with his listeners. The discussion is cut short, however, when word starts to come in about a demonstration of some kind outside the office of a Dr. Mendez (Hrant Alianak). While Grant editorializes regarding the scant amount of information they have about the unfolding event, his producers Sydney (Lisa Houle) and Laurel Ann (Georgina Reilly) try to find some kind of official corroboration for the eye witness accounts. Though there is no official confirmation from the police about what is happening, people continue to call in to discuss the increasingly violent and disturbing events outside of Dr. Mendez’s office.

As the day progresses, the death toll mounts, and words like "cannibals" start getting tossed around, Grant starts to lose it, believing that this is all part of some big hoax being perpetrated on him. It isn't until the appearance of Dr. Mendez himself at the radio station (which is actually just a church basement), that the reality of the situation starts to sink in. There is a virus of sorts going around, he explains, one that isn't passed through the blood but through the English language itself. This presents something of a dilema for the radio team, who wonder how they can explain the situation and warn people if the language is infected and are also forced to question their own culpability in spreading the virus through their medium.

Save for a few moments, the film takes place entirely in the church basement and much of it takes place in the sound booth itself after Dr. Mendez reveals that the afflicted hunt with their ears not their eyes. Safely (for the time being) locked up in the soundproof booth, Grant and his crew have to figure out what they're going to do to save themselves and how they might cure those who have the virus, but haven't reached the fatal stage yet (those who have the virus and don't find a victim to pass it on to kind of... explode). This minimalist approach makes the film all the more effective because the tension rises as the safe space becomes smaller and smaller. The fact that we don't actually start to see the effects of the virus until about 2/3rds of the way into the film is also quite effective and credit for that goes to the actors, who so successfully convey and transfer their growing sense of terror to the audience. There isn't a lot of gore in this movie (a little but not much) but it's about a hundred times scarrier than most movies that dispense with buckets of blood from openning to end credits. The terror is psychological and that can be pretty hard to shake off.

It's difficult not to read a political meaning into this film when its protagonist is a radio show host who prides himself on "telling it like it is," language is the enemy, and one of the characters is a soldier recently returned from Afghanistan. One of the symptoms of the virus is repeating a word ad nauseum which, if you've ever watched certain news shows, you know that simply repeating "talking points" in an increasingly loud voice is what passes for political analysis these days. Pontypool isn't aggressively political but this criticism of the way that language is being abused is definitely there.

Bruce McDonald, who directed last year's "love it or hate it" The Tracey Fragments, keeps the film really lean stylistically speaking. The simplicity of his style here adds immensely to the growing feeling of claustrophobia that the screenplay and the actors work so hard at creating. Pontypool is apparently the first film in a planned trilogy from McDonald - I'm not really sure how that will work given how this one ends, but I'll definitely be looking out for the next installment.

Review: (500) Days of Summer (2009)

* * * *
Director: Marc Webb
Starring: Joseph Gordon-Levitt, Zooey Deschanel

There aren’t a lot of movies that deserve to be mentioned in the same sentence as Annie Hall, but (500) Days of Summer is one of them. While most romantic comedies centre on the romance of possibility and end at the real beginning, this one focuses instead on an actual relationship, with all its inherent ups and downs, and knows that just because something is good, doesn’t mean it’s meant to be permanent. I can think of no better way to introduce this movie than to quote another great comedy: “Love don’t make things nice – it ruins everything. It breaks your heart. It makes things a mess. We aren’t here to make things perfect. The snowflakes are perfect. The stars are perfect. Not us. We are here to ruin ourselves and break out hearts and love the wrong people and die. The storybooks are bullshit.”

Tom (Joseph Gordon-Levitt) is a hopeless romantic. How hopeless? He thinks The Graduate has a happy ending. The first time he sees Summer (Zooey Deschanel), he’s smitten, as many men are. Alas, she does not want a boyfriend, as she prefers to be independent and not “belong” to anyone. Because he wants her so badly, he allows himself to believe that he can change her mind, that he can convince her as he’s convinced himself that they’re fated to be together. Their relationship begins casually (for her, anyway), gets serious, and then abruptly ends, leaving him heartbroken and confused. As he looks back on the relationship, he just can’t understand where it all went wrong. They were so right for each other so how can it just be over?

The problem is that despite Tom’s proclamations that Summer is the love of his life, he doesn’t really know her. He’s so fixated on his idea of a perfect, permanent love and so determined to make her fit into the mould that he’s always had in his mind that it prevents him from really seeing her as a human being in her own right. This disconnect is exacerbated by the unconscious knowledge that as much as he wants to he can’t actually make her fit into his vision, and all the anxieties that that knowledge entails. One of the most telling scenes for me is when Tom and Summer go to a bar and she’s relentlessly hit on by some idiot. The guy expresses disbelief that Tom is Summer’s boyfriend and Tom punches him, which upsets Summer. “I did it for you!” he laments, which is absolutely not true. He may have done it because of her, but he certainly didn’t do it for her. He did it for himself because the guy in the bar wounded his pride and expressed Tom’s own fear that Summer is out of his league, that she’s going to realize it and that she’s going to leave him.

As a character, Summer is thinly conceived. Since we only see her through Tom’s eyes this makes sense because he either can’t read her or doesn’t really want to. Late in the film, one of Tom’s friends compares his girlfriend to his dream girl and declares that his girlfriend is better because she’s real. Tom thinks he can have both the reality and the dream and so he ignores those things about Summer that don’t conform to his ideal. To emphasize this the film incorporates many elements of fantasy, including a dance number and a sequence done in split screen, dividing Tom’s dream version of an event from the reality of it. These elements are folded easily into the larger narrative and provide a lot of insight into Tom’s character and state of mind.

I went into (500) Days of Summer somewhat guarded. Having been bombarded with the trailer for the last couple of weeks, I felt a bit over the movie before even seeing it, but my enthusiasm for it was renewed once I was watching it. It isn’t a perfect movie – I could have lived without the “wise child” character and I think that the ending is perhaps too clever by half – but it is pretty great and features wonderful performances from both Gordon-Levitt and Deschanel.

Review: The Hurt Locker (2009)

* * * *
Director: Kathryn Bigelow
Starring: Jeremy Renner, Anthony Mackie, Brian Geraghty

One word review: Amazing.

If you require more words, you'll find them under the cut.

The objective is simple: stay alive from the beginning of the day until the end. Some days will be more eventful than others and not everyone will meet the objective. The film opens on Bravo Company, a month from the end of their current deployment. The EOD team has just lost its team leader and a replacement is sent in the form of Sergeant William James (Jeremy Renner). The other members of the team – Sergeant Sanborn (Anthony Mackie) and Specialist Eldridge (Brian Geraghty) – are jerked out of their comfort zone by James’ style, as they are accustomed to working together collaboratively and James more or less works alone, allowing Sanborn and Eldridge to be little more than an audience for his exploits. His recklessness makes an enemy of Sanborn, though the two do occasionally find common ground.

The film is episodic in form and focuses on just a handful of days in which James, Sanborn and Eldridge work together. There isn’t really an arc to the story itself, but the three characters have individual arcs which carry over the episodes. At home James has a young son and a marriage on the rocks. From the way that he describes his marriage – stating at one point that he thought they were divorced but his wife is still living in the house – it seems that he feels powerless on the domestic front. He doesn’t know what home life will bring, but work is much more cut and dried: he’ll either die or he won’t. He savours not just the fact that he is alive while so close to death, but that he’s in charge of the situation and he knows what he’s doing. His personal relationships are like bombs he has no idea how to disarm.

Sanborn is much the same way; somewhat adrift when it comes to relationships but much more confident when he’s working. The reason why Sanborn and James don’t get along is because James’ unpredictability shakes that usual confidence – in an already stressful situation, working with someone you can’t read makes the situation almost unbearable. However, surviving James puts him in a frame of mind where he feels that he can survive the travails of domesticity. As for Eldridge, he’s a character who is like an exposed nerve. He’s shaken by the death of his former team leader, for which he blames himself, and for a later death in the field. He lacks the confidence of James or Sanborn and wants so badly to do the right thing that he’s often paralyzed into doing nothing. Renner and Mackie have received a lot of attention for their performances – and rightly so – but Geraghty’s performance is deserving of mention as well. It’s difficult not to feel for Eldridge, who is so intensely vulnerable, particularly compared to James and Sanborn. The three central performances are fantastic with each actor bringing something different but essential to the table. Renner, Mackie and Geraghty give performances that stand out from each other while at the same time supporting and complementing each other.

The film would be worthy of recommendation based solely on those performances, but The Hurt Locker can also boast a strong script from Mark Boal and exquisite direction from Kathryn Bigelow. The action is shot with handheld cameras, giving it a realistic, pseudo-documentary feeling. The special effects are superb but, importantly, they aren’t the point of any given scene. Sometimes the bombs go off and there’s an explosion, but what you remember afterwards is the tension before the blast or the diffusion of the bomb and the way that the film slowly builds upon the initial dilemma – the bomb itself – by adding several more to the scene. When the bombs are diffused, it’s usually done right out in the open, in the middle of the street. People stand at windows and on rooftops watching, perhaps out of simple curiosity but perhaps with a malicious objective. It’s up to Sanborn and Eldridge to assess these potential threats and hesitation can be the difference between life and death.

Many films have been made in the last few years about the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, few of them any good. The Hurt Locker is constructed less a war movie and more a thriller and part of what makes it work so well is that it removes itself from the political aspect of the war on terror. There are no great speeches about “why we’re here” or “why we shouldn’t be here;” the simple fact is that they are there and they have a job to do. It’s this very simplicity that carries the film and the ordinariness with which life and death are treated which makes it so resonant.

Review: Moon (2009)

* * * *
Director: Duncan Jones
Starring: Sam Rockwell

Finally! After months of soggy romantic comedies and soulless CGI extravaganzas that amount to little more than bright colors and loud sounds, comes a truly great and engaging movie. This first feature length film from writer/director Duncan Jones is a smart science fiction story in the tradition of 2001: A Space Odyssey and Solyaris that not only does everything right, but does it on a small budget. Run, don’t walk, to the theatre to see this movie and don’t read any farther if you want to go into this completely unspoiled.

The film takes place in the future when 70% of the earth’s energy is supplied courtesy of the moon through Lunar Industries. Sam Bell (Sam Rockwell) mans the moon base, the only human on-board with no one but the robot GERTY (voiced by Kevin Spacey) and the occasional video transmission from earth to keep him company. He’s nearing the end of his three year contract and anxiously awaits his return to earth where he expects to be reunited with his wife, Tess (Dominique McElligott) and their daughter, Eve. Strange things have started happening to Sam – he’s seeing things and convinced that he’s losing his mind, but he keeps reminding himself that he only has two more weeks to go and then it will all be finished.

While out to retrieve helium from one of the harvesting machines, Sam crashes his rover and wakes up back in the base, being cared for by GERTY. He hasn’t been out long, GERTY assures him, but he needs his rest in order to properly recover. Sam can’t shake the feeling that something is very wrong and does some investigating which eventually leads him to... himself, still stuck in the rover. He rescues the other Sam, who refuses to believe that they’re both clones and continues to insist that he’s the original and that he’s going home to Tess and Eve.

Most of the movie involves Rockwell interacting with himself as the dual Sams, creating two distinct characters that are like Goofus and Gallant versions of the same guy. With these two characterizations, Rockwell proves once again that he’s one of the most dependable and charismatic actors working today, easily carrying the movie without ever wearing out his welcome. I would very gladly watch an Odd Couple in space type show that involved the Sams trying to live together without killing each other. Rockwell taps into some dark humour but also gives the Sams an emotional resonance that takes the film to the next level, allowing it to rise above some of the more conventional elements of its plot.

Moon works in large part because it finds the right balance between taking itself seriously and having fun with the genre. GERTY is like a kinder, gentler version of HAL 9000, which adds in no small part to the story’s suspense. Is GERTY really looking out for the Sams like he claims or do his ever shifting emoticons hide darker intentions? There’s something about GERTY’s calm, steady voice that is vaguely sinister and certainly rooted in the collective memory of that earlier robot. There are a lot of things here that are reminiscent of 2001 - although this movie is about a thousand times more accessible than Kubrick’s film - but at no point does this feel like a rip-off. Moon takes familiar themes and ideas and makes them its own.

Though Moon isn’t a film with a big budget or wall-to-wall special effects, it makes the most of what it does have and creates something really special. I think that this is a movie that people will still be talking about and praising years from now, when some of this summer’s more lavishly budgeted movies have been long forgotten. I can’t wait to see this again.