Gamer (Dir: Neveldine/Taylor)

Big spoilers below. But many of my readers will want to avoid this unsettling exploitation pic anyway. I saw it so you don't have to.

"Gamer" employs a fence-sitting plot of many exploitation films that both bemoans dehumanizing violence and revels in it. In the future, we force our death row inmates to participate in violent games in order to entertain us and possibly secure their freedom. Director(s) Neveldine/Taylor ("Crank" and "Crank: High Voltage") like so many exploitation filmmakers before them reveal the inherent evil of the system by focusing their film on a noble participant (Gerard Butler) wrongly accused and framed by the system. So maybe letting death row inmates kill each other isn't so bad--look at all the neat explosions and kill shots--but it's certainly bad in the instances when it snags a hero and a family man. We don't need a more humane outlook on justice. Just better quality control.

But the co-directors do add an interesting, if unpleasant, wrinkle in the film's subplot which follows the hero's wife and her participation in "The Sims"-like game Society. Society allows players to select a living, breathing avatar to exploit in whatever way they see fit--usually sexual escapades. Like the violent game in which the hero participates, the film both revels in the prurient results as well as criticizes them. These scenes, however, are so unsettling and vile--particularly the site of a nearly naked morbidly obese laughing at the pain he inflicts from afar--that the film seems to more successfully execute a critical position by making us sick to our stomachs. Engaging in the exploitation here makes the viewer queasy and more than a little guilty, sad.

The directors jettison their soapbox in the climax, however, which gives the villain his violent comeuppance while the whole world/moviegoing audience watches and cheers. The message: Enjoying violence is okay as long as its victims are bad people. This moral is as old as the cave walls, but Neveldine/Taylor seem prepared to criticize this position by making a film that is so disturbing as to wake us to our willingness to dehumanize in the name of entertainment and the pursuit of justice. But they throw this all out the window in the end and reveal that the prurience was the point, an end unto itself, and what we're rewarded for the price of admission.

G.I. Joe: The Rise of Cobra (Dir: Stephen Sommers)

Fans of the G.I. Joe cartoons, actions figures and playsets will find nostalgic charm in "G.I. Joe: Rise of Cobra." The film is faithful to its source material right down to having the good guys shoot red lasers and the bad guys shoot blue lasers. This color coded anarchy is helpful during the manic onscreen melees. It's no help when the two sword carrying ninjas face off. Why does the high tech, high body count, gun-toting Joe force need a ninja? Because the bad guys have a ninja, too. See Cold war, arms race.

The faithfulness to source material also means the movie is incredibly stupid. This is Saturday morning plotting on a giant budget. The bad guys are insanely evil. The good guys are all basically the same character--this one's the black good guy, this one's the French good guy, this one's a girl. Appropriately, for a film based on plastic figures, Channing Tatum plays the lead. The whole enterprise might have been winningly stupid had Stephen Sommers ("The Mummy", "Van Helsing") cast someone else in the lead. Frequent Sommers' leading Brendan Fraser has a cameo in the film and one could imagine him successfully selling this frenetic mess as he has done before. He usually treats this kind of junk as comedy and brings us along for the ride. Tatum acts like he is starring in "Saving Private Ryan."

The film does feature a strong action scene at its center where the good guys try to stop the bad guys from destroying the Eiffel Tower. The music ramps up, the action is more clearly defined than at any other point in the film, and the movie sucks us in for about twenty minutes. After the fight, the movie immediately devolves into heavy handed French bashing that will be bliss for anyone who enjoyed diplomacy is for wusses message of "Transformers 2."

Here is yet another action movie trading in on and coasting on the nostalgia for plastic figures from our youth. It's a loud mess hopefully more indicative of the stupidity of summer than a dumbing down of the movies.

Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince (Dir: David Yates)

The plot of "Half Blood Prince" could fit on a cocktail napkin. Harry returns to Hogwarts, does some more coming of age, and tries to avert an evil plot by the forces of darkness. Like the Potter films before it, the production is competent, but leaves me with no desire to ever see it again. Having read the books, the films feel like visual Cliffs Notes with the only surprise being how the cast and crew interpret the material.

Director Yates, who helmed the previous Potter installment, gives us the gloomiest film yet. The thin material gives him a chance to show off including a wonderful CGI-enabled tracking shot that moves across the windows of Hogwarts from a scene of young Ron in love to a pensive Draco staring out hoplelessly to a shot of dawn breaking over Hogwarts. Jim Broadbent as the name-dropping Professor Slughorn delivers his usual strong work and gives the film a humane center in the midst of the exposition heavy script and CGI-wizardry.

Public Enemies (Dir: Michael Mann)

So it seems that Director Michael Mann has permanently graduated from the use of film to muddy, mundane digital video. And it's a shame. In collaboration with cinematographer Dante Spinotti ("L.A. Confidential"), Mann brought us the visually lush "Last of the Mohicans" and "Heat." Even the less epic Russell Crowe muckraking film "The Insider" had a sharp, compelling presentation. Digital video (DV) is considerably cheaper which undoubtedly gives the director more control over the film. (Keep your film under budget and studios are more apt to stay out of your way.) DV, however, is ugly. It's pretty bad at capturing rapid movement, making action scenes less intelligible. DV is also apt to let light overpower an image and it takes away the traditional visual crispness associated with the heightened reality of cinema.

Mann first used DV in the Tom Cruise/Jamie Foxx film "Collateral" and it lent that film veracity and a feeling of "being there." In his follow-up "Miami Vice," Mann's use of digital video underlined the vapidity of the source material rather than allowing Mann to revel in the film's glitzy, dangerous setting. The cinematography in "Public Enemies" is mostly tolerable, but it still hobbles the film. Take for instance a scene where John Dillinger, played by Johnny Depp declares his undying love for girlfriend Billie (Marion Cotillard) while at a sun drenched Miami race track. The camera raises dramatically for an overhead shot of the couple and the lush Elliot Goldenthal score kicks in and the moment fizzles. Digital video, at least as used by Mann, is incongruous with traditional dramatic cinema technique.

The film does offer a fascinating take on bank robber Dillinger. He lived his life in public and was a fascination of the press and public. He flaunted the law and seemed to live above it. J. Edgar Hoover, played by the always excellent Billy Crudup, decides to take down Dillinger in order to boost the credibility of the under fire FBI. Mann packs his film with a solid supporting cast and offers a unique take on the gangster story, but his visual technique never allows the film to take off. Some great performances; a forgettable film.

Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen (Dir: Michael Bay)

Wife: The food here is terrible.
Husband: Yeah, but look at the size of the portions!

For sheer moviegoing value, you can't beat Michael Bay, a director whose films are so bloated, busy, and full of heroic imagery that you get an entire summer's worth of blockbusters in one sitting. But just like eating a large bag of Doritos eventually leads to regret and self loathing, sitting through an entire Bay film brings on the hate and it's hard to live with yourself in the morning.

Where to start with this regrettable extension of the Transformers brand? Like the similarly incomprehensible Jerry Bruckheimer produced "Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest," "Revenge of the Fallen" is a globe-spanning bauble hunt involving shards of the All-Spark and the Matrix of Leadership all integral to the quest to cultivate much-needed Energon. With a script that is clearly an afterthought--a means to get us from Point A to Point B and to create an excuse for giant robots fighting--why make it all so complicated? All of these baubles have appeared in the Transformers mythology at one point or another, but does a franchise created solely to sell toys deserve slavish accuracy in its adaptation for the big screen? All that's gained is confusion and a few grins of recognition from devoted fanboys.

The Michael Bay aesthetic has not changed with his latest film. Every shot is a hero shot with a helicopter mounted camera view always preferable to a static close-up. In Michael Bay world there are no static close-ups. Every moment is as equally important as the next. There are no moments of reflection and calm before the action gears start turning once again. It's frankly exhausting and displays a profound lack of storytelling skill. His storytelling is further hobbled by his inability to establish visual geography. Visual geography allows a viewer to orient himself within the filmed space, understand the players involved and what's at stake. Bay just buys the largest fireworks display possible, lights it on fire and moves his camera from one point to another--never for longer than seven seconds.

"Revenge of the Fallen" also displays clumsy attempts at humor including dogs humping each other, robots humping humans, and robots with testicles. Every woman in the movie is either a super model or lunatic and the film trades in unnecessary stereotypes. The two worst offenders are the jive talking Skids and Mudflap who have gold teeth, monkey shaped faces, foul mouths, and can't read. Bay's world is an ugly, over caffeinated place.

The Taking of Pelham 123 (Dir: Tony Scott)

Your ability to enjoy "Pelham," Tony Scott's slight but serviceable thriller remake, depends on how much you can stand John Travolta hamming it up as The Villain. He's bad. Real bad. You can tell by the fact that he has evil facial hair and has a tendency to switch from gleefully ironic line readings to uncontrolled rage at a moment's notice. When Travolta plays villains he always appears to be having a ton of fun. Usually more fun than the audience. His "Pelham" baddie is almost tolerable and falls on the Travolta villain spectrum between "Battlefield Earth"--awful--and "Face/Off"--actually menacing.

He shares screen time with Denzel Washington as a somewhat paunchy transit worker forced into a hostage situation he would rather avoid. There are some great scenes in the early going when we get to see Washington behind his desk directing the many trains of the New York City subway system through the use of a giant electronic display. At one point he is referred to as maestro and it's a pleasure to see someone doing a complicated, demanding job well as he directs the cars steadily on their way. These scenes are important to the film and endear you to a character that gets satisfyingly more complicated as the film wears on.

Washington soon finds himself trying to negotiate on behalf of Travolta's subway hostages. The scenes at the train station are tight, interesting, and offer compelling character moments while Travolta's subway menace moments are flabby and rote. We are seeing two different films and Washington's is substantially more interesting. When the two films merge, the film speeds on to a violent climax that will not surprise any seasoned moviegoer. Tony Scott's direction is frequently distracting as his use of freeze frame and slow motion do little to heighten tension. Washington is enough of a force to keep the movie interesting and he keeps it chugging along.

Land of the Lost (Dir: Brad Silberling)

Can production design alone redeem a movie? The answer is no, otherwise an expansive day-glo fantasy oddball wonderland would have saved the execrable "Batman and Robin." But excellent, knowing production design, a commitment to an absurd sci-fi premise, and some low-key comic performances can and all make for a fun summer diversion. The design of the film honors the original hacky tacky look of the Sid and Marty Kroft series of the same name, but creates a whole world from it. The film's sets are kitschy, but not ironic. The movie honors the show's original bargain basement production values but on a blockbuster scale.

The film's script also hews closely to the off-wall premise of the "Land of the Lost" series, but streamlines the whole affair. The show always had some interesting ideas at play, but the pacing was glacial and unraveling its few mysteries took far too long. Here the inter-dimensional conflict between the primitive Sleestak and their more advanced Altrusian forefathers gets wrapped up in an hour and a half. With the help of the ape-man Cha-ka (Jorma Taccone), Dr. Rick Marshall (Will Ferell), Will (Danny McBride, "Eastbound and Down"), and Holly (Anna Friel, "Pushing Daisies") evade Grumpy the T-Rex and try to save mankind. Pulled into a world made up of creatures and landmarks culled from across time and space, Dr. Marshall and crew uncover a conspiracy to control the universe.

Those who haven't been fans of Ferrell or McBride in the past won't be won over by this film which essentially has them riffing on the same characters they play so well--pompous ass and crass simple kind a' man, respectively. But even as the two riff the whole absurd plot keeps turning giving the movie a lighter touch than the throw everything at the screen and see what sticks "Anchorman."

"Land of the Lost" is too goofy and too committed to its unique aesthetic and storyline to have broad appeal. But there is enough visual inventiveness and oddball humor to entertain a certain type of moviegoer.

Up (Dir: Pete Docter)

I have now seen "Up" twice in three days. On Friday night, per my usual moviegoing routine, and today with both kids and wife in tow. I wanted to share this film with them and laugh and cry and delight with them. This movie is that good and people are soon gonna be spreading the gospel of "Up" bringing friends, family, neighbors to share this film with them. "Up" is a movie about things, big things, scary things, but it also features talking dogs so your whole family will be entertained. It's a blockbuster that respects the intelligence of the audience and continues to display Pixar's masterful storytelling economy. Watch any given Pixar film a few times and you'll be amazed at how almost each line of dialogue or dialogue-free image moves the story forward, works as foreshadowing, and underlines the film's themes.

"Up" is also beautiful. And painful. And exuberant. In its first fifteen minutes we experience most of the life of Carl Frederickson, husband of Ellie, balloon salesman, and dreamer. We see him go from quiet child to crotchety coot in a very short span and the speed with which his life passes is painfully swift. Carl and Ellie make grand plans, but life keeps getting in the way. Soon we are experiencing life alongside senior citizen Carl who decides to fulfill a childhood promise to his sweetheart Ellie and undertake a safari to South America.

Carl turns his home into a sky vessel in a beautiful scene that will have you grinning from ear to ear. As he sets off on his trip, he discovers stowaway Cub Scout Russell, an earnest young man with, like so many Pixar heroes before him, a generous spirit. Their journey very quickly, in what will be a surprise to no one, gets complicated and dangerous.

The film reaches a heartbreaking emotional crescendo in its first act making the standard adventure elements of the second and third seem almost prosaic in comparison. This bothered me less on the second viewing when I was more tuned into the film's comedy, inventiveness, and consistent beauty. I was also able to observe the care with which each image is constructed. The placement of characters and objects on the screen always serves a thematic purpose and decoding these was a real pleasure. There's metaphors aplenty in this tale and unpacking all of them is instructive. I also took the chance to enjoy the craftsmanship, voice-acting, animation, and score. The score, by Michael Giacchino (of "The Incredibles," Star Trek," and "Medal of Honor" game series) is exquisite and will surely prove to be one of the year's best. (I'm listening to it once again as I write this.)

"Up" is a grand achievement that grapples with loss, love, and the utter necessity of connecting and giving one's self to others. It's a brave movie that will make you laugh and cry and not feel bad about it in the morning. Go see this one soon and take someone you love.

Executive Koala (Dir: Minoru Kawasaki)

I'm sure I missed some of the nation-specific satirical barbs in this off the wall Japanese comedy about cutthroat corporate culture and an anthropomorphic koala who may or may not be a killer. To this Western viewer, "Executive Koala" played like an Adult Swim entry with its unfailing, straight faced commitment to the absurd. Trying to cope with the disappearance of his wife, businessman and man-sized koala Tamura attempts to lose himself in corporate negotiations. He increasingly finds himself haunted by memories of violence and develops a tendency to fly into fits of unbridled rage accompanied by blinking, glowing eyes.

I don't want to spoil any of the film's surprises and would advise renters to avert their eyes from the DVD label as it gives away one of the film's best visual gags. Those viewers who complain about the cheap special effects--for instance, the zipper being visible on the Koala's costume--have failed to realize that these are both budget and style choices. Director Kawasaki, who previously brought us "Rug Cop" and "Calamari Wrestler," has developed a cheapo aesthetic and this is undeniable part of the film's charm. Troma fans are sure to be delighted by Kawasaki, but will find a sweeter, more gentle film in "Koala" than those produced by Kaufman.

But a little of this goes a long way and the film's story is too flimsy to be compelling. The film works to a degree as it continually amps up the absurdity, but the plot is a tired retread of Hithcock themes with more concern about style than storytelling. It's DePalma for furries.

Angels and Demons (Dir: Ron Howard)

Howard's latest excursion into Dan Brown inspired Catholi-ploitation is ludicrous, but will not bore you to tears like it's predecessor "The Da Vinci Code", one of the worst films of the decade. I did not read "Code", but while watching the film I was amazed that it was a work that was shaking people's lifelong faiths to the core. It was beyond implausible and stillborn. Its worst sin was not casting doubts on the chastity of Christ, but being unforgivably boring. The film made the mistake of attempting to be both reverent and subversive and failing on both counts. How could a story so ridiculous subvert anyone's faith, and why did such a pulpy, off-the-wall thriller attempt reverence? The movie needed to be zippy in order to distract from its storytelling flaws. Instead it was a slog filled with bad history and stock characters. Brevity is the soul of pulp.

"Angels and Demons" mostly lives by the above maxim--and is far better for it--though it flags in it's waning moments when it steps back to reveal the weight and breadth of the conspiracy at its center. We can't be asked to take any of this seriously, but director Howard pleads with us to try. The story finds Ivy league Symbology--not a real discipline--professor Dr. Robert Langdon (Tom Hanks) safely back in the classroom after discovering the Holy Grail. (Spoiler: It's Audrey Tatou's reproductive system.) The discovery didn't make him any friends in the Vatican, but they realized he was a formidable opponent. When the Vatican comes under attack from the ancient science loving Illuminati, Langdon is called back into the fray.

When he gets to Rome he sets off on an implausible quest throughout the city that you realize, when the movie pauses to catch a breath, is utterly ludicrous. It's the kind of quest the Riddler set up for Batman where you realize the criminal would be more successful if he stopped leaving clues. But without the clues, there's no movie and no work for adventure loving symbol-nut Langdon. Four men are kidnapped and Langdon must follow an ancient trail that points to each man's whereabouts before they are killed one by one. But really wouldn't the whole endeavor been just as successful if the men had been offed in a secret location not revealed by tell tale statues? The Riddler is insane and needs the game, but the bad guys in this movie are simply craven. Why not more efficiency?

But the film zips along so if you must watch it, you'll be diverted. Its gustatory equivalent would be the eating of a marshmallow. Empty calories, not much taste, but it goes down easy enough.

Star Trek (Dir: J.J. Abrams)

It wasn't until I was sorting through my feelings about the new Star Trek film that I realized how much I actually did care about and enjoy the Trek universe. Star Trek is something my dad loved and so as a kid I tried to love, too. The original show never did much for me as the bad sets, pacing, and dated look of it all kept me at a distance. But in the flashier, bigger-budgeted movies, I found a Star Trek my father and I could both enjoy. Star Trek II and VI are great movies and there are bits in all the rest that I like.

It was "Star Trek: The Next Generation", however, that I really loved--still do--and it made me a lifelong appreciator of the Trek films and shows. The acting was much improved, the special effects pretty good, and the science fiction concepts often fascinating but palatable. I do not consider the Star Trek universe perfect in its entirety--some of the movies are horrible--but I do have a basic grasp of Trek-ness. And JJ Abrams dumps much of what makes Trek tick and delivers a big, fast moving cartoon of a film. As promised, this is not your father's Star Trek.

It's also not very good. The script is an arbitrary mish-mash of sci-fi-ish ideas that allows Abrams to rejigger the Trek-verse however he sees fit. Fair enough. Star Trek has just as many bad entries as good so it's hardly an unassailable canon. But even the worst Trek is usually built around a solid, sometimes tired, sci-fi idea. What does it mean to be human? What is intelligence? Does God exist? Who is God? Should we play God? The new Star Trek pays lip service to some of these themes, but the script mostly moves us from one action set piece to another. It's serviceable and explosion-y, but very typical summer fare. Loud and dumb.

The constant silliness of the film was also a disappointment. The captain's hands swell to enormous size due to allergies. The ship's engineer experiences an Augustus Gloop-esque ride through the ship's water system. An Ewok type figure offers reaction shots to the constant space shenanigans. All this leads to a film that is more "Galaxy Quest"--an actually not anywhere near as good as "Galaxy Quest"--than Star Trek. And the action scenes while big and fast left me cold.

I think I've become immune to the gee-whizzy wham bang attraction of the summer blockbuster. (Save for "Speed Racer.") In an age when CGI has made the depiction of any image possible, when giant explosions, monster fights, and car chases can be more easily generated than filmed, such moments offer little thrill. It all seems so easy to produce and all so transparently fake. How interesting that Pixar, a company whose film's are completely computer-generated, regularly produces the most compelling and humane blockbusters.

There's worse ways to spend a hot summer night than "Star Trek", but far better ways, too. Why not go rent "Wall E" instead.

X-Men Origins: Wolverine (Dir: Gavin Hood)

"Wolverine" is the definition of superfluous. Synonyms for "Wolverine" include flaccid, tepid, unnecessary. Twentieth Century Fox needed several big releases for the year and "Wolverine" filled one of the empty slots. The film gets by solely on the idea that if it puts Wolverine up on the big screen, no matter the story, we'll go see it. I paid full admission so Fox is obviously on to something. It also throws in lots of mutant cameos which make little sense other than said mutants are also popular and will generate enough goodwill to keep the fanboys happy.

The story of "Wolverine" is standard superhero origin boilerplate. Feeling guilt after the death of a parent, the titular hero flees his home and tries to run away from the pain and burden of his unique abilities. In the process, he wreaks havoc on the lives of those who are kind to him and must ultimately face down his demons in a climactic battle. Every turn of the script, every surprise, is expected and uninspired. Bloated incoherent blockbusters are apt to inspire my hatred--see "Transformers" and "Armageddon"--but this one just inspired indifference. It's a lifeless bore.

Observe and Report (Dir: Jody Hill)

With "Observe and Report," director Jody Hill continues to create ballads to the emasculated and crazy. "The Foot Fist Way," Hill's choppy first effort, followed constantly cuckolded Tae Kwan Do instructor Fred Simmons (Danny McBride) and his delusional reach for greatness. "Eastbound and Down," Hill's recent HBO series, tells the story of the John Rocker-like Kenny Powers (Danny McBride) and his delusional quest to re-enter the majors well past his prime. "Observe and Report," featuring a cameo by Danny McBride, cranks up the violence and delusions and plays unlike any other recent comedy, excepting those from Jody Hill.

There is constant cruelty in Hill's work and the climaxes reach a fever pitch where extreme violence redeems the hero. Hill continuously humiliates his male leads who are oblivious to their incompetence and then redeems them through the exercising of their own worst natures fueled by their once pitiable craziness. He seems to always be having it both ways, destroying with cruelty giving the audience the laughs that come from superiority, but closes by giving them a hero to leave them happy. The world that pitied and laughed at the violent failures inevitably bends to their will and eventually honors them. You don't need medication. Just your dreams.

Adam Sandler, Rob Schneider, and Jerry Lewis comedies tend to function this way as well, but Hill's view of the world is so much uglier and harsh making the laughs more bitter and the conclusions more confounding. ("Eastbound and Down" was more successfully realized, however, in its final moments, but the next to the last episode offers a weird, violent scene of redemption.) Hill does surround himself with talented casts and does successfully strip his actors down to the worst they can be, but to what end?

I liked "Observe and Report" to a point--Seth Rogen is compelling as a mall cop who mistakes life for a Michael Bay film and Anna Farris continues to shine no matter what material she's given--but its tone shifts are too sudden and false to allow the movie to resonate beyond its moment-to-moment shock comedy. The film will startle laughter, sympathy, and revulsion out of you, but for what? The film totally blows it in its uplifting final moments, but maybe by that point we're living in the fevered imagination of mall cop Ronnie Barnhardt. The movie shocked, but left me shrugging.

Synecdoche, New York (Dir: Charlie Kaufman)

Navel gazing. Self-indulgent. One is tempted to level both criticisms at Charlie Kaufman's directorial debut. But the film doesn't end its gaze at the navel--it keeps burrowing in deeper, past the lint, through the dermis, and into the bowels of the writer/director. And faulting him for self-indulgence is redundant since the film is clearly a journey into the fevered psyche of Kaufman where we are asked to sort out the details. We are invited to Be John Malko--I mean Charlie Kaufman. We have been let off at the 7 1/2th floor and entered the Kaufman door.

Kaufman, of course, scripted "Being John Malkovich" and with "Synecdoche" he revisits some of the same ontological and phenomenological territory. What is the self? How do I perceive myself, others, and the universe? "Malkovich," however, was buoyant, playful, and wacky and closed with a hopeful coda while "Synecdoche" makes a beeline straight for the pain. We will wallow in it with playwright Caden Cotard (Philip Seymour Hoffman), Kaufman's doppleganger, and live through a lifetime of regret in two hours. The different tones of the two films has to do in part with directors. Spike Jonze brought a light, inventive touch while Kaufman is just as content to let images sit still for contemplation. Even the visual inventiveness, and this film is not in short supply, does not pop and delight. It causes dread and unease.

But this is surely the point. The film begins in a relatively straightforward manner. Cotard is depressed and having difficulties in his marriage to Adele (Catherine Keener). He is anxious about his staging of "Death of a Salesman" and has begun a flirtation with the theater's ticket seller (Emily Mortimer). The film appears to be a normal domestic drama, but as the minutes pass we know something is slightly off. By the time we visit the house that's always on fire, the film has become completely unmoored from reality as we know it and we have to begun to experience the director's existential dread right alongside of him.

The film is endlessly creative but too self-involved to stir most audiences. As with Woody Allen, Kaufman's films appear to be therapy where he works out his issues and neuroses on screen. It has been said that you are everyone in your dreams and Kaufman teases this out in his films to the point where you are also everyone in your waking life and a god as well. It's a solipsistic existence that's finally intensely lonely. The commercial prospects for this were clearly limited. Kaufman breaks free of typical narrative convention and lets his ideas take the lead.

"Synecdoche" is filled with ideas and strong female performers. Catherine Keener, Dianne Weist, Emily Watson, Jennifer Jason Leigh, Samantha Morton, Hope Davis, and Michelle Williams all give fascinating performances. It's exciting to see so many accomplished actresses in challenging roles all in one film. The film follows no predictable pattern and continually surprises. It's a fully realized depiction of dread and longing, but not completely convincing in its convictions.

Watchmen (Dir: Zack Snyder)

Some of "Watchmen" is brilliant. Set in 1985 in a world where Richard Nixon was elected to multiple terms and men and women with super powers helped us win the Vietnam War, the US is on the brink of nuclear war with the Soviets. Those with super powers have not made the world better--we see this in "The Dark Knight" as well--and, in fact, have helped make it worse. In this plot point we see an argument against the still going weapons race--it leads to escalation, increased danger instead of safety--played out onscreen. The development and eventual weaponizing of the the super powerful Dr. Manahattan, able to reconstitute matter at will, raises tensions with the Soviets leading us to the brink of annihilation.

This is the game and stakes as "Watchmen" opens. A costumed hero will be murdered sending the Travis Bickle-like Rorschach into action as he sets out to solve the mystery. Rorshcach sees the world in black and white--mostly black--and he the avenging angel giving no quarter to the "scum" of the city. His investigation leads him to interview other costumed heroes and in this way we witness a host of origin stories and learn the dark secrets of many of the superpowered. Unfortunately, the film telegraphs its villain a little too clearly so then we are only left with trying to discern motive.

Snyder's theme, by way of the Alan Moore novel, seems to be that the superpowered are not heroes and so much ability consolidated into only a few individuals is good for none and leads to the emergence of a fascist class. Snyder seems to be be bringing this theme to the fore as he shows heroes mangle the bodies of the unjust. They burst limbs open and hack into villains with seeming ease and glee. The scenes are repulsive and I'm willing to go along with the director if the harrowing violence is meant to show how depraved these heroes actually are. It's an invigorating, if not pleasant, reimagining of the super hero genre.

But then Snyder tips his hand and it becomes clear that the bloodbath and wallowing in the gore is, as in the ridiculous "300," meant to be violent ballet. And it's not so much the violence that bothers me--I loved Snyder's unsentimental "Dawn of the Dead" remake--but how its inclusion lays waste to all the nuance that has come before. This fact crystallizes in a prison scene where Rorschach, the Silk Spectre, and Nite Owl escape from a prison riot and are clearly having fun as they hack off limbs with power saws and beat enemies to a pulp. The movie then tries to return to profundity, but it is now clear that Snyder's slo-mo, bone crunching is the point of the film. The Moore novel provides Snyder a pretext for heroes beating the snot out of their inferiors.

There is brilliance in the film, however. The opening credit sequence is a wonder as it lays out a dense backstory in just a few minutes. It reminded of DeVito's incendiary opening monologue in "L.A. Confidential." The set decoration and costuming bring the world of the classic novel to life and this is sure to please its most ardent fans. Jackie Earle Haley, unsettling in "Little Children," nails Rorschach and Billy Crudup as the god-man Dr. Manhattan is sufficiently cold and distant. Dr. Manhattan's transformation from man to weapon is tragic and the movie's high point.

So much works in the film, but its stylized violence undercuts its themes. A fascinating misfire not for the squeamish.

Coraline (Dir: Henry Selick)

"Coraline," is a fantastic mix of the traditional and the cutting edge. Utilizing beautiful stop motion animation and presented in 3D, in some theaters, the film offers a time-honored message in a state of the art package. 3D has advanced to the point where it actually serves the story as opposed to being an end unto itself. In the opening credit sequence, we see long, spindly iron fingers above the screen as they construct a button-eyed doll. There is menace in these metallic hands and the three dimensional effect adds to the sense of dread. The hands seem close and capable of reaching out to us. When the characters onscreen stand outside a doorway, the viewers are tempted to lean forward in order to peak into the room. The 3D is effective and enriching.

Coraline (Dakota Fanning), the pre-teen heroine of the film, is moving into an apartment complex in the filled with eccentric neighbors. Her parents both write and leave Coraline feeling alone and neglected. She hates her dad's cooking and misses her old friends. And then she finds a mysterious door in the wall and while playing one evening chases a little mouse through the door and into a mirror universe that looks similar to her own, but seems better. The food is better, the world never boring, and her button-eyed Other Mother and Father give her everything she wants.

The film, based on an excellent novel for children by Neil Gaiman, has a strong message at its heart. "Coraline" posits that hedonism is both empty and dangerous. Also, in order to fully indulge you must become blind to the suffering your pursuits will cause. It's a bit surprising that in a package as cutting edge and fantastic as "Coraline" that we are essentially being presented with a traditional moral warning. The film is not heavy handed, however, and your pre-teens will not quickly pick up on the message. In the context of the film, the message is completely sensible.

The animation on display is excellent, but as the movie showcases its character design and animation set pieces the story loses some momentum. Once Coraline discovers her quest, however, the movie becomes engrossing and tense. In fact, the film's extended climax will likely be too intense for the very young. The voice work is delightful with Terri Hatcher surprising in two roles as Coraline's mother and the film's villain. She is obviously enjoying the role and it enriches the entire experience. Also listen for a cameo by John Linnell of "They Might Be Giants."

The artistry on display is delightful and the film offers a unique animated experience. Go see this one soon, but leave those under five at home.

Fireproof (Dir: Alex Kendrick)

Earnest and well-meaning, "Fireproof" is, nonetheless, not very good. The film is crippled by tepid direction, amateur theater level acting, and a proselytizing endgame. It is important to note, however, that the film was made entirely by volunteers. This does not improve the quality of the movie, but it perhaps helps us to be more forgiving of its flaws. We don't expect The Mercury Theater when we attend the local church's drama night. It's a religious tract on film and by church drama standards, it's "Citizen Kane."

Fireman Caleb Holt (Kirk Cameron) supervises his fire station in a tough, but fair manner. He has earned his co-workers respect, but feels totally disrespected at home by wife Catherine (Erin Bethea). Their marriage is in trouble as their home life has devolved into daily recriminations and petty squabbles. Catherine has also caught the eye of a doctor (Walter Burnett) and the two appear destined for a fling. Caleb's dad, fearing his son's marriage will soon end, presents him with a handwritten book called "The Love Dare" that challenges Caleb to begin acting kindly and selflessly toward his wife.

Caleb never comes across as very sympathetic and this is both, I believe, a function of the script and a sign of Cameron's limited acting ability. He fully commits to anger and frustration and holds that note until a transformation late in the third act. (This is hardly a spoiler if one is aware of the necessities of the genre.) What's problematic is that both his transformation and the hope of reconciliation rest on his returning to the church. Fair enough given what is obviously the film's goal--winning converts--but that this path is the only way to save a troubled marriage is a bit of cop-out. What hope do folks have who are either in church and struggling in their marriages, or do not attend church and have no intention of doing so? The film implies that acting unselfishly--a key to sustaining marriage--cannot occur unless one is a Christian. That's simply not true and immediately limits the effectiveness of the film, if it is, as I believe it wants to be, a tool to save marriages.

And of course the very fact that the film is a tool first and a drama second hinders it from the starting gate. The drama and characters are always on message and so everything's a little too tidy and the marriage difficulties a little too neat and chaste. The directorial choices, particularly lighting and composition, are also safe and workmanlike, sanitizing every moment. The movie's just too safe to create any needed sense of peril. Surprisingly, though, given the film's limited budget, it's two action scenes, while clearly staged, give the film a pulse and generate the movie's only heat. One stunt, involving a train bearing down on the heroes, looked genuinely dangerous.

Too tidy and on message to move any but the converted.

Awards Week: Oscar Preview

The 81st Academy Awards celebration will commence tomorrow night and this year there's little to get excited about. The Best Picture nominees are largely middling--"Milk" was filled with great performances and "The Curious Case of Benjamin Button" was close to excellent. But "Slumdog" was all flash and no depth, "Frost/Nixon" was an entertaining trifle, and "The Reader" is an embarrassment to the Academy. It's not a horrible movie. It's just not any good. How many other films were deserving of thesel five spots? I can name you at least ten.

It was selected because its producer Harvey Weinstein is a master of getting films nominated. Its selection lays bare the vacuity of the Awards. The game is close to fixed. Like politics, Oscars are given to those who are able to throw enough money into the campaign. And the films are furiously campaigned for. Pick up a copy of Variety any time in the Winter and you'll see. Those full page ads are expensive.

The selections are almost always safe and predictable as well. (Those film goers wanting to consult the Academy for some of the year's most interesting films should look to the Best Original Screenplay category--the ghetto to where the year's more edgy, engaging films are usually relegated.) The best way to approach the awards is to see them as an expensive pageant put on by the studios to help boost ticket and DVD sales. Winning an award brings some prestige to the studios, but more importantly they help make them money. Hense the expensive campaigning.

Best not to get too upset if your favorite films don't win any awards, or aren't even nominated. The Academy Awards are to quality as winning the Pro Bowl is to gridiron glory.

With all those caveats, here's my quick run through the major nominees (see full list here):

Performance by an actor in a leading role

* Richard Jenkins in "The Visitor" (Overture Films)
* Frank Langella in "Frost/Nixon" (Universal)
* Sean Penn in "Milk" (Focus Features)
* Brad Pitt in "The Curious Case of Benjamin Button" (Paramount and Warner Bros.)
* Mickey Rourke in "The Wrestler" (Fox Searchlight)

Seems like it's Rourke's to lose. Academy voters like a good story and the story of a performer trying to resurrect his career dovetails nicely with Rourke's comeback story in the making. Consider Penn a strong second place.

Performance by an actor in a supporting role

* Josh Brolin in "Milk" (Focus Features)
* Robert Downey Jr. in "Tropic Thunder" (DreamWorks, Distributed by DreamWorks/Paramount)
* Philip Seymour Hoffman in "Doubt" (Miramax)
* Heath Ledger in "The Dark Knight" (Warner Bros.)
* Michael Shannon in "Revolutionary Road" (DreamWorks, Distributed by Paramount Vantage)

The Academy will award this to Ledger. This one's a lock. My safe pick of the week.

Performance by an actress in a leading role

* Anne Hathaway in "Rachel Getting Married" (Sony Pictures Classics)
* Angelina Jolie in "Changeling" (Universal)
* Melissa Leo in "Frozen River" (Sony Pictures Classics)
* Meryl Streep in "Doubt" (Miramax)
* Kate Winslet in "The Reader" (The Weinstein Company)

Winslet was a Golden Globe winner for her performance. Expect the same Sunday. This is where the Weinstein's "Reader" campaigning will pay off. Would really like to see Leo or Hathaway win this one, but don't count on it.

Performance by an actress in a supporting role

* Amy Adams in "Doubt" (Miramax)
* Penélope Cruz in "Vicky Cristina Barcelona" (The Weinstein Company)
* Viola Davis in "Doubt" (Miramax)
* Taraji P. Henson in "The Curious Case of Benjamin Button" (Paramount and Warner Bros.)
* Marisa Tomei in "The Wrestler" (Fox Searchlight)

Not sure. Viola Davis was good and seems to have buzz. I'd go with her in a pinch. "Doubt" was an actor's showcase and I expect it to win at least one award.

Best animated feature film of the year

* "Bolt" (Walt Disney) Chris Williams and Byron Howard
* "Kung Fu Panda" (DreamWorks Animation, Distributed by Paramount) John Stevenson and Mark Osborne
*"WALL-E" (Walt Disney) Andrew Stanton

"WALL-E" was the best animated film and this year's best film. Should win.

Best motion picture of the year

*"The Curious Case of Benjamin Button"
*"Frost/Nixon"
*"Milk"
*"The Reader"
* "Slumdog Millionaire"

"Slumdog" has been an audience favorite. It's got a triumphant love story, a lead character overcoming adversity, and its safely exotic. Think this will win.

Awards Week: The Year's Ten Best Films

I saw several movies in the last twelve months that were not 2008 releases but still shook me up and I couldn't get out of my head. These stuck with me long after I finished them:

Morvern Callar--Not for all tastes, but this film burrowed into my psyche and set up permanent residence. Scottish party girl Morvern Callar (Samnantha Morton) returns home on Christmas Eve to find her live in author boyfriend has committed suicide. Morvern's next steps are wholly unexpected. A fascinating study of the vacuousness of party culture with a lead character you can never pin down. Morton has never been better. Great soundtrack.

A Face in the Crowd--Fans of "The Andy Griffith Show" must see this film starring Andy Griffith as a charismatic, but evil to the core, fount of folksy wisdom. Lonesome Roads is a drifter discovered by a reporter who helps him rise to stardom, inadvertently unleashing a monster of a man. A neglected classic.

Lake of Fire--Director Tony Kaye ("American History X") lets all sides in the abortion debate speak for themselves. While it probably won't change anyone's mind, it does a good job of showing the impact of abortion on all parties. I did, however, find myself fast forwarding through some of the film's more graphic scenes.

After the Wedding--A synopsis of the film might lead you to believe that its a weepy, twisty soap opera. That the film keeps surprising you, but remains convincing and grounded is a testament to the actors and director. A wrenching drama about family secrets, guilt, and learning to cope with loss. I did not see a better drama this year.

In addition, when I first watched The Strangers, a 2008 release, I thought it was just a creepy horror film, but it stuck around in my head, gave me nightmares for weeks, and made me feel generally unsafe. Not the least bit of fun, but I had reevaluate it and grudgingly respect the craft of a movie that so completely unnerved me.

And now, the The Best Director(s) of 2008:

Ari Folman for Waltz with Bashir--"Bashir" is an animated documentary about the director, a former Israeli soldier, trying to remember/come to terms with the trauma he lived through and helped inflict in Israel's first war with Lebanon. This movie grabs you from its visceral opening scene and by using animation, the director successfully conveys how he can't separate his dreams and hallucinations from the reality of the war he lived through. Unlike any film I've ever seen.

Jonathan Demme for Rachel Getting Married--Demme successfully creates the impression that he is not a manipulator of cast and crew, but a videographer capturing a dramatic wedding and its preparation. The roles feel lived in and the filmmaker disappears.

Cristian Mungiu for 4 Months, 3 Weeks, 2 Days--The film is unflinching and frequently disturbing, but crafted to perfection. Mungiu tackles a controversial subject, but avoids becoming preachy. He has meticulously crafted every element, but is never invasive. The sound design alone is a marvel.

And now, at last, The Ten Best Movies of 2008:

10. Tropic Thunder--The year's funniest film. Rude, crude, and hilarious. Robert Downey Jr.'s performance is astonishing.

9. Boy A--Though the film falters in its conclusion--its a little too on the nose--this story of a lost boy is not to be missed.

8. Wendy and Lucy--A story about those living in poverty that impacts, but is not didactic.

7. The Dark Knight--I don't love Christopher Nolan's direction of action scenes, but the actors were captivating and the morality satisfyingly muddy in this umpteenth re-imagining of Batman.

6. Paranoid Park--Languorous and non-linear, this is a moving take on coping with guilt. Cathartic, but it begs for viewer patience.

5. Waltz with Bashir--See description above.

4. Rachel Getting Married--A better, more moving wedding tale than any recent similarly themed rom-com.

3. 4 Months, 3 Weeks, 2 Days--Upsetting and truly sad, but essential viewing. Viewers may want to consider reading a few plot descriptions before watching this film.

2. Happy Go Lucky--Uplifting without being mawkish. Loopy optimist Poppy tries to heal the world and comes face-to-face with a deeply wounded man who may be beyond saving. A truly healing film.

1. Wall-E--An original sci-fi vision that is a wonder to behold. The animation is beautiful and graceful. The first act is among cinema's best.

Tomorrow (or sometime before Sunday night): my less than enthused Oscar preview.

Awards Week: Best Performances, etc.

Above: Michelle Williams and Lucy in "Wendy and Lucy"

The conventional wisdom is that this was a weak year for movies and a quick glance at this year's Best Picture nominees certainly supports that argument. Any year in which "The Reader" is one of the best films would be a weak one indeed. In reality, though, this year was pretty strong for those willing to venture beyond the top ten at the box office. I would agree that many of the films released by the major studios for awards consideration were middling and were more like attempts to create awards vehicles than good movies.

On the other hand, this year's blockbusters were surprisingly strong. The summer film market is squarely targeted toward the tastes of 12 year old boys. (See Summer 2009: "GI Joe" and "Transformers 2.") That so many enjoyable films were made in spite of this was a minor miracle. "The Dark Knight," "Iron Man," "The Incredible Hulk," "Wall-E," "Kung Fu Panda," "Hellboy 2," and, yes, "Speed Racer" were as strong a line-up as any summer in memory. This summer also gave us "Step Brothers," "Burn After Reading," and "The Strangers." (And everyone of the movies listed above was better than 4 of the 5 best picture nominees.)

But any given year has a host of great films for those willing to try out documentaries, foreign films, and movies that don't usually play outside of large metropolitan areas. Thanks to Netflix and other online media delivery systems it is getting easier for the curious film fan to sample all kinds of unique movies.

Now let's look at the year's best performances (minus the also excellent Mickey Rourke and Sean Penn, but you can read about them nearly everywhere):

Anamaria Marinca in 4 Months, 3 Weeks, 2 Days--Marinca is on screen for almost the entire time of this invasive, claustrophobic film about a harrowing night in 1980s Communist Romania. Her performance is small and subtle, but she convinces you of the deepening fear and dread she is experiencing as the night wears on. A no doubt emotionally taxing role.

Richard Jenkins in Burn After Reading, Step Brothers, and The Visitor--It was a great year for Jenkins who nailed these three roles. Each allowed him to show his sizable comic talent, but his low key desperation in "The Visitor" made for the best of the three.

Anne Hathaway in Rachel Getting Married--Those who hated this film because Hathaway's character was self-centered, vain, and destructive missed the point. She was all those things, but that was intentional. That the film asks us to love and sympathize with her and that she makes this possible speaks to her strong acting chops.

Alejandro Polanco in Chop Shop--Polanco plays 12 year old Ale an ambitious entrpreneur scraping and saving for a better life for he and his older teenage sister. Its an unadorned performance, seemingly effortless.

Michelle Williams in Wendy and Lucy--"Dawson's Creek" alum Williams first impressed me in her hilarious role in the Watergate comedy and one of the best films of the 90s Dick. In "Wendy and Lucy," she plays a cash-strapped young woman trying to make her way across the US and to Alaska in hopes of a better life. As her plans fall apart, Williams begins to unravel and her pain is palpable.

Sally Hawkins in Happy Go Lucky--Hawkins got no love from the Academy for her performance as a perpetually cheery elementary school teacher trying to heal the world with kindness.

Andrew Burridge in Boy A--Burridge plays Jack Hawkins, a man being freed from prison after being there since childhood. Broken and timid, Jack must try to craft a normal life. A heartbreaking, beautiful performance that the Academy would have loved if more had seen it.

And now, ten of this year's top twenty films and some deserving honorable mention:

11) The Order of Myths
12) Let the Right One In/The Curious Case of Benjamin Button
13) Chop Shop
14) Burn After Reading
15) Up the Yangtze
16) Shotgun Stories
17) Speed Racer
18) Step Brothers
19) The Incredible Hulk
20) The Strangers

Honorable Mention: In Bruges, Be Kind Rewind, Charlie Bartlett, The Visitor, Redbelt, The Fall, Surfwise, Priceless, The Edge of Heaven, Kung Fu Panda, Encounters at the End of the World, Tell No One, Hellboy II: The Golden Army, Man on Wire, Frozen River, Vicky Cristina Barcelona, The Duchess, Changeling, Milk, Frost/Nixon, My Winnipeg

Tomorrow: the best films of the year, best director, and several films that I can't seem to shake.

Awards Week: Worst Films of 2008

This Sunday (Feb. 22) ABC will be airing the 81st Annual Academy Awards. In celebration/correction of that event, I'll be offering the definitive list of the best and worst films of 2008. I planned on seeing a few more of the critics' favorites before Sunday, but I'm burnt out. I've had my fill of pensive meditations on family dysfunction so I'm calling it quits on 2008 film catch-up.

Here's a list of all the films eligible for this year's awards (i.e. every film released in 2008 that I can remember having seen).

There are some advantages to reading the What I'm Watching Awards over watching the Oscar telecast. Reading this will be much shorter and I feature no montages or self-righteous speechifying. Visitors will also be glad to know that my awards are 100% "Reader"-free. I also don't have this to live down.

Who am I wearing?

Van Heusen and Gap

Today we'll be looking at the Worst of 2008 (in no particular order):

Dear Zachary--this documentary took a tragic subject and used it as an opportunity to make a shrill, bitter screed. A nasty piece of work that does not honor its participants.

Doomsday--a genre exercise that kept piling on the ridiculous. Imagine an afternoon of 80s made for cable sci-fi/sword and sorcery flicks all bundled up into an hour and a half. Not nearly as fun as it sounds in part due to the nauseating gore sucking any potential fun out of the proceedings.

27 Dresses--a leaden romantic comedy almost redeemed by the watchable Katherine Heigl and James Marsden. Paper thin characters in service to script.

The Day the Earth Stood Still--a boring remake made more ponderous by a wooden Keanu Reeves.

Seven Pounds--(SPOILER) the feel good suicide movie of the year.

Eagle Eye--ludicrous.

Righteous Kill--almost my least favorite of this year. DeNiro and Pacino go through the motions in this tired police thriller. Very boring.

Worst Film of 2008

Zack and Miri Make a Porno--Kevin Smith peaked with "Clerks." That film's limiting budget, amateur cast, and necessarily static camera helped hide his directorial handicaps. Not good with actors, too in love with his own scripts, poor editing, and a general ugliness in his presentation all add up to make my least favorite film of 2008. And his tender take on porn films was a hollow fiction.

Worst film that I enjoyed in spite of itself

The Happening--bizarre, awful, but compulsively watchable. The stilted line delivery that Shyamalan asks each of his actors to use is a head scratcher. I wasn't particularly troubled by the premise which I found plausible enough and Shaymalan still manages to get in a few good scares. But the goofy dialogue--why you eyein' my lemon drink?--Python-esque lion mauling, and bizarre line deliveries sink this film. It's a meticulously crafted horrible movie. So fundamentally off and un-human that it plays like cinema from another world. Don't miss it.

Films eligible for the 2008 What I'm Watching Awards

All the movies released in 2008 that I can remember having seen:

27 Dresses
Cloverfield
Cassandra's Dream
Teeth
*4 Months, 3 Weeks, 2 Days
*In Bruges
Definitely, Maybe
*Be Kind, Rewind
*Charlie Bartlett
The Signal
Semi-Pro
*Chop Shop
Miss Pettigrew Lives for a Day
*Paranoid Park
Doomsday
Run Fatboy, Run
The Ruins
Smart People
*The Visitor
Young@Heart
Forgetting Sarah Marshall
Baby Mama
Then She Found Me
*Up the Yangtze
Iron Man
*Redbelt
*Speed Racer
*The Fall
*Surfwise
*Shotgun Stories
*Let the Right One In
*Priceless
The Chronicles of Narnia: Prince Caspian
Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull
*The Edge of Heaven
*The Strangers
The Foot Fist Way
*Kung Fu Panda
You Don't Mess with the Zohan
The Happening
*Encounters at the End of the World
*The Incredible Hulk
*Wall-E
Hancock
Kabluey
The Wackness
*Tell No One
*Hellboy II: The Golden Army
*The Dark Knight
*Step Brothers
The X-Files: I Want to Believe
American Teen
*Boy A
*Man on Wire
*The Order of Myths
*Frozen River
Pineapple Express
*Tropic Thunder
*Vicky Cristina Barcelona
Death Race
The House Bunny
*Burn After Reading
Righteous Kill
Ghost Town
Eagle Eye
Nick and Norah's Infinite Playlist
Appaloosa
*The Duchess
City of Ember
Quarantine
*Happy Go Lucky
W.
*Changeling
Zack and Miri Make a Porno
Dear Zachary
Role Models
Quantum of Solace
Slumdog Millionaire
Bolt
Twilight
*Milk
The Day the Earth Stood Still
Doubt
Gran Torino
The Reader
TimeCrimes
*Wendy and Lucy
Seven Pounds
*The Curious Case of Benjamin Button
Valkyrie
Revolutionary Road
*Waltz with Bashir
*Frost/Nixon
*Rachel Getting Married
*My Winnipeg
The Wrestler
The Secret Life of Bees
30 Days of Night

The Wrestler (Dir: Darren Aronofsky)

About half of "The Wrestler" works well. The film features a fascinating performance by Mickey Rourke who owns the role of a once notable entertainer cashing in on his former fame with diminishing returns. The only place Randy "The Ram" Robinson feels comfortable, the only arena in which he consistently succeeds, is the wrestling ring. Even though he is aging and his body is starting to turn on him, The Ram keeps heading back into the ring. It is the only place where he can be whole and fully realized.

And then there's his estranged daughter (Evan Rachel Wood) and stripper friend Cassidy (Marisa Tomei), the Mary Magadalene to his suffering servant. Assigned to Randy by Syd Field, they keep getting in the way of the authenticity that Rourke and Aronofsky establish in other scenes. For every seemingly unrehearsed scene focused on the backstage bonhomie of the Ram and the other wrestlers, there's a screenplay required confrontation between Randy and his daughter or Randy and Cassidy. These might not stand out as glaringly in a movie that employed less of a stripped down aesthetic. The film uses the over the shoulder, day in the life technique of the Dardennes, a grainy washed out presentation, and a raw performance by Rourke and the other wrestlers. These faux-verite elements clash with the pedestrian drama provided by the women in The Ram's life. But don't blame actresses Wood and Tomei. They're hindered by a predictable script.

Well worth seeing for Rourke's tremendous performance, but the movie as a whole comes up short.

Revolutionary Road (Dir: Sam Mendes)

Why do we not sympathize with the Wheelers? "Revolutionary Road" is a tragedy, but we find little sympathy for the Wheeler family who bring about their own dissolution. If you cannot connect with a tragic figure than you are merely a voyeur. For the audience, there's no catharsis and no tears. We are merely clinicians or scientists, observing. Cold and detached. If the Wheelers were placed in the same setting with the same stimuli, the results would be the same. What lesson do we learn from this film? The Wheelers should never have gotten married.

Part of the problem is with director Sam Mendes detached style. The lighting in his scenes is just so. The set dressing, make-up and costuming impeccable. He can put together a beautiful image with the best of them. (See the beautiful, but similarly detached "Road to Perdition.") There are some nicely constructed moments in "Road" involving parades of faceless businessmen coming to and from work. At key moments, Frank Wheeler (Leonardo DiCaprio) nearly disappears into the cloud of drones or stands apart from them. Winslet and DiCaprio deliver intense performances that were undoubtedly taxing--there will be shouting--but we are always watching them from afar.

There is an invigorating moment, late in the film, when Mendes switches to a handheld camera--almost always used to amp up/signal a rise in tension--and lets his film go a little. We are suddenly there with Frank and April Wheeler (Kate Winslet) and the film jangles the nerves. Distractingly, the score for this so similar to the one created by Thomas Newman for Mendes' "American Beauty" that you might swear the two were one in the same. "Revolutionary Road" is a bit of a curiosity. An impeccably staged, detached tragedy.

(Michael Shannon is getting some awards season notice for his role as the film's Jester. He's good in this, but even better in this year's deep-fried, low budget drama "Shotgun Tales." He was also the best part of the adequate Oliver Stone film "World Trade Center.")

Taken (Dir: Pierre Morel)

Efficient and soulless. Borrowing a page from the Jack Bauer and Jason Bourne playbooks, Liam Neeson exacts cool revenge throughout the Paris underworld. Neeson plays former US secret agent Bryan Mills who is on a mission to track down and punish the men responsible for his daughter's kidnapping. His mission is equal parts payback and extraction. One suspects that retired agent Mills went on his mission as much for the opportunity to torture thugs as to get back his daughter Kim (played by Maggie Grace better known as Shannon on "Lost.")

Bryan Mills is always one step ahead of the bad guys, much stronger, faster, and more knowledgeable than his competition. He barely breaks a sweat. He dispatches whole rooms of thugs with bloody economy. Given Mills superiority and the frequent boss battles, "Taken" plays like a video game. Between bouts of fast mayhem, we see cut scenes of PG-13 torture and minimal exposition. This is a Jason Statham vehicle starring Liam Neeson.

Given the minimal sense of peril, the film's kicks are found mostly in the dispatching of bad guys. If you enjoy vicious headbutts, stabbings, and expert grappling, you'll find much to like. Bryan Mills is a great deal like Jason Voorhes--unstoppable and efficacious. "Taken" is an exercise in the current action style and this is disappointing coming from director Pierre Morel who gave us the off-the-wall, alive, ridiculous, and outstanding action film "District B13." "Taken" possesses little of the joy and verve of "B13." The palette of "Taken" is also dull and straightforward. Morel does this one by the numbers.

The best moment in "Taken" occurs early on as Mills wraps his daughter's birthday gift with OCD-like attention to detail. He carefully smooths down the paper and makes each fold sharp and distinct. It's a charming character moment, quiet and human.

Underworld: Rise of the Lycans (Dir: Patrick Tatopolous)

(This review will no doubt generate a comment such as "Did you get paid to see this?" I would ask readers to go easy on me and remind them that when your options are "Hotel for Dogs," "Paul Blart: Mall Cop," "Bride Wars," or "Underworld," you pick the one with vampires fighting werewolves.)

I went into this film with more than a little anxiety worried because I had never watched one blue-hued second of Len Wiseman's mighty "Underworld" saga. Would I be confused as to why werewolves and vampires hate one another? (After the film, I'm still a little unclear on this matter.) Would I learn why Kate Beckinsale, after a string of indies and respectable period paces, became the go to girl for b-fantasy? And would I learn what the socially appropriate term for a wolfman is? If you're with one of them at a party or workplace do they prefer Lycan or Werewolf? I'd rather not anger a wolf-person and I abhor species-ism.

None of these questions would be answered, but I was able to follow the film. The first two "Underworld" films--as far as I can gather--tell the story of the ongoing battle between werewolf and vampire. The latest installment is a prequel and tells the story of Vampire Lord Viktor and the beginning of his feud with his foster lycan Lucian. Set in the middle ages, it is a murky tale--the better to hide CGI flaws with--that purports to tell a tragic tale about an interspecies feud of which we are still feeling the impact to this day. Like Stephen King's "Wizards and Glass" entry in the Dark Tower series or the ill-advised Episodes 1-3, this film wants to be a tragic aside in an attempt to give added depth to an ongoing series. Unlike King and Lucas, "Rise of the Lycans" is mercifully brief.

The film clips along at a brisk pace never pausing long enough for you to try and suss out the story details. We're essentially dealing with vampires versus werewolves. The direction is adequate and the creature effects--what you can see of them--are interesting. Character actor Bill Nighy, playing the evil vampire lord Viktor, chews scenery, wears blue contacts, and scowls through much of the proceedings. The vampires are ill-defined, seem kind of weak, and are nowhere near as fearsome as the Lycan. The storytelling, setting, and characters are all thin. These are stock characters in stock situations. The action is, as the ongoing trend, impressionistic rather than schematic. Displaying cool flips and decapitations is more important to the filmmakers than letting you follow the action at hand.

You will certainly see worse movies this year. This one has the advantage of being blessedly short.

Dear Zachary: A Letter to a Son About His Father (Dir: Kurt Kuenne)

The story at the center of this documentary is devastating. The Bagby family undergoes a horrific tragedy that was certainly hell to live through and to continue to live with. So while my deepest sympathies extend to the long-suffering Bagbys, I find the film based on their story to be seriously deficient and tone deaf. Part of the problem lies in director Kuenne's closeness to his subject. A personal friend of the Bagby family, he doesn't approach the story as a journalist, but as a man with an axe to grind. And while we understand the source of his anger by film's end, it overshadows his objectivity. He is frequently snide and dismissive. The tragedy at the film's center is done a disservice by Kuenne's frequent caricatures.

Stepping onscreen in your own documentary is problematic as it quickly discounts your objectivity. It telegraphs to the audience that you may be too close to your subjects to treat their story fairly. Unless the film is about you--and Dear Zachary is not as much about Kuenne as he seems to think it is--it's also distracting. The film presents a very narrow picture of its subject Andrew Bagby--a man who did no wrong and was loved by everyone--that it is hard to not suspect Kuenne of hagiography. The director's greatest success is in letting the parents of Andrew vent, get angry, and weep on camera. These are the film's most unvarnished and believable moments.

The film's central conceit, as well, is dreadfully misguided. The film is ostensibly a video keepsake for Andrew's son showing the boy how much his father is loved and cherished by friends and family. So the film's divergence into repeatedly telling the boy what a she-devil his mom was comes off as unnecessarily cruel. This view of the mother begins to gain traction as the film progresses--and its inclusion slightly more justified--but it's glaringly out of place in the letter to the boy. The film morphs from letter to a son to angry director with an axe to grind making its central conceit seem unnecessary and manipulative.

Decidedly tragic, but tone deaf. An unpleasant experience.

Surfwise (Dir: Doug Pray)

The tight knit Paskowitz family lived a dreamlike existence packing their nine kids into a camper, living beachside in cities across the US and Mexico, surfing everyday, never sending the kids to school and working only when they had to. By 2006, many of the family members weren't speaking to one another. The story of how the family fell apart is at the center of this intriguing documentary.

Dorian "Doc" Paskowitz, the patriarch of the family, is a Stanford graduate and one-time head of the American Medical Association for the State of Hawaii. Though he achieved significant professional success at a young age, he was miserable and dropped out of his work and marriage. While on a worldwide research tour--bedding numerous women--he meets Juliett who scores high on his "1-100" scale that he uses to quantify each conquest. She joins him in the tiny camper and together they go off to live Dorian's dream. He feeds the kids an all natural diet, keeps them out of school, teaches them how to surf, and conducts all marital activities in front of his nine children.

The film uses a mix of news footage, still photography, and modern day interviews. At first the tone of the film is kind of wacky and fun, but the tone grows darker and more bizarre as the children age. Is Dorian a tyrant? Is he forcing the family to live a dream that is fundamentally unwise, unhealthy? The film lets Dorian and the children pass judgment on their own experience. (Ordeal?) Some of the now grown childrens' interviews are particularly painful including a pained, angry song from son David which he wrote for his father and sings to the camera. This is one of the rawest, most uncomfortable film moments I have seen in recent years.

Surfwise wisely lets each family member speak for themselves and in doing so creates an even-handed, fascinating look at a family in crisis.

Gran Torino (Dir: Clint Eastwood)

Here is a film sure to stymie many a viewer. Gran Torino contains more racist slurs than any film I have ever seen and they are spoken by the film's reluctant hero. And yet the movie isn't really about racism. It is, however, about a racist living in a neighborhood that has changed. Walt Kowalski who was once surrounded by Polish neighbors is now living among Laotian, Aftrican-American, and Hispanic neighbors. One gets the impression that Walt built an insular world with his wife who, when the film opens, has passed away. Now alone, he ventures out in to his neighborhood to find it radically changed.

Racist language is wielded in films to either a)signal a character is evil or b)elicit uneasy laughter. It is also tends to define the character who uses it, making them one-dimensional. Walt will not be so easily pigeonholed. After defending his prized 1972 Gran Torino from thieves, Mr. Kowalski becomes embroiled in the lives and conflicts of his neighbors. At first his involvement with them is begrudging.

Gran Torino is a little clunky with its uneasy mix of comedy and drama. Kowalski's boiling anger is frequently played broadly and the film's final dramatic confrontation too pat to satisfy. I was never bored by Gran Torino and it's an oddball of a film that shifts tones from broad comedy to violent melodrama to gentle observational humor. Clint Eastwood is as always a commanding screen presence and in Walt Kowalski, he plays one of the year's most interesting screen heroes.

Paranoid Park (Dir: Gus Van Sant)

Alex (Gabe Nevins) in the span of about a week is going to mature exponentially. As the film opens, Alex presents as an indifferent, callow teen guy. He is a skateboarder and in the way of teens, he has fully inhabited this role, let it define him. He hangs out with skaters, wear skater clothing, and hangs with the skating tribe. He appears to be passing through life trying not to get in anyone's way, content to just be.

But after a trip to Paranoid Park--a local skating hangout--Alex's life becomes more complicated. Paranoid Park is a work of folk art. Adjacent to a railroad track, it has been designed by drifters and the under-employed as a skating refuge. Skaters aren't welcome often beyond their own driveways and Paranoid Park is a haven full of half-pipes, ramps, and swooping curves. Many of its regulars are also dangerous.

Told in a non-linear fashion, Paranoid Park is about being haunted by secret knowledge that eats away at you. Alex is forced out of callowness into deep reflection and maturity. Park is not a plot-driven film. Director Van Sant spends much of the film meditating on the faces of his characters. He also cultivates a steadily deepening dread that we begin to experience alongside Alex. Anyone who has ever lived with guilt will ultimately find the film both personal and cathartic. This is a film that rewards your patience and willingness to wait and observe.

American Teen (Dir: Nanette Burstein)

Though not as artificial as MTV pseudo-reality staple The Hills, this Paramount produced documentary about several teens from Warsaw, IN, eschews versimilitude in order to create as dramatic a film as possible. Some scenes ring true particularly those featuring the not-raised-on reality TV parents. (All except for the Elvis-impersonator father who clearly loves the attention.) The film consistently gives off an air of artificiality. Several teens date outside of their normal cliques and one can assume this in part has to do with a chance to get some time on camera. As anyone who has sat through The Bachelor or the odious A Shot at Love, amour can be faked for the camera quite easily.

And in its artificiality, the film inadvertently allows the viewer to contemplate the veracity of reality television and ask the question of whether or not anyone born in the late 20th century can ever be genuine for the camera. In effect, we're dealing with two barriers to capturing an accurate picture of today's teen, a promise made by the title. Teens are inundated by reality programming. They have internalized the rhythms of the reality show and the behavior of its stars. So its inevitable that teens will be "playing a part" in the drama. As mentioned above, there are several odd romantic choices made by the film's characters, as well, that reveal either a desire for stardom by the teens or meddling by producers/director. Likely a little bit of both. We are not really seeing a documentary about today's teen, but an observation of how teens will act while filmed.

With all that understood, the film is entertaining. Director Nanette Burstein has crafted a slick production that plays like an above average teen flick. Even with the cameras on and several unbelievable dramatic contrivances, we do get glimpses of reality. Iconoclast Hannah's conversations with her manic depressive mother and the film's basketball games contain real drama. This is a highly flawed production that is nonetheless entertaining.

The Visitor (Dir: Tom McCarthy)

In the movies when strangers enter your home, it is often played up for horror. But in The Visitor, Prof. Walter Vale enters his New York apartment and finds a husband and wife living in his home, happily. This is a more benign, humanist tale of strangers invading. Walter befriends the invaders and even learns from them. This setup, though, is really a means to examine xenophobia and current U.S. immigration policy. When Walter welcomes Tarek into his home his life is enriched. So should the U.S. welcome its visitors and have our nation similarly enriched.

This message took me out of the story somewhat as the film feels a bit like a didactic exercise, a fable. Director Tom McCarthy stacked the deck thoroughly in his favor. He wants to demonstrate the injustice of current immigration practices specifically deportation. Tarek (Haaz Sleiman), the illegal immigrant in danger of deportation, is extremely kind and brings unhappy recluse Walter out of his shell. I don't doubt that the U.S. is full of noble, kind illegal visitors like Tarek, but I also believe the McCarthy intends Tarek to be a stand in for all immigrants. If one so noble as Tarek could be turned away, isn't the process inherently flawed?

I should state, however, that I enjoyed The Visitor very much. It is a humane film that demonstrates the virtue of opening our lives to others. Like the director's other film The Station Agent, it tells the story of a man who is enriched when he chooses to get to know and fellowship with his neighbors. The performances are calm and subtle. McCarthy directs with a steady hand and allows room for silence and, in turn, reflection for his audience. Richard Jenkins gives a performance so assured that one cannot imagine another actor in the role.

The Visitor succeeds as a character study, but as an allegory it comes up a little short.

The Strangers (Dir: Bryan Bertino)

We are living in a time of dread. The economy is highly unstable. We are fighting two wars. Pensions are disappearing, new housing developments sit empty, and our jobs are cutting back hours, benefits. We are aware that our institutions, homes, and places of business are are vulnerable to collapse. The Strangers taps into this existential dread and channels it into an effective, disturbing, and very sad tale of home invasion. It also gave me nightmares for weeks.

You may have had the feeling while watching horror films that they are not exactly scary. Freddy Krueger has not scared anyone since he left Elm Street. Jason and Michael Myers are such indestructible super men as to render them only scary to the very young. The films these bogeymen occupy are gore delivery devices. A true horror film takes the mundane and adds real evil. A true horror film plays like a nightmare and makes you believe that "yeah, this could happen. And it could happen to me." The Strangers is a true horror film.

The film, similar in execution and premise to the recent French import Them, tells the story of two young lovers (Liv Tyler and Scott Speedman) who have their vacation home invaded by three anonymous souls who seemingly have no motive other than to terrorize. The Strangers is calculated and careful. It's a sleekly crafted, but sad story. The final scenes are so brutal and uncompromising, though not especially gory, that you are more likely to be left in despair than frightened.

I admire The Strangers for its execution, but it is a horrific tale without hope. This film stares into the abyss and sees weeping and gnashing of teeth. Hell is not somewhere else. It's right here.

4 Months, 3 Weeks and 2 Days (Dir: Christian Mungiu)

Two women, Otilia and Gabita, smoking cigarettes. Pensive, no unnecessary words between them. Silence. Otilia finally breaks the silence. "Okay," she says and the movie begins. Otilia moves throughout the dorm they share, collecting some belongings and giving Gabita last minute instructions. Then Otilia leaves her Bucharest university campus and begins her harrowing journey.

Set in the Communist Romania of 1987, 4 Months, 3 Weeks and 2 Days, is a story about oppression and about how living in a state of fear can create a sterling bond between the oppressed. Is it hard to imagine Otilia putting herself at such personal risk and sacrificing so much if she lived in relative freedom and safety. Otilia's mission will prove repellent to some of the viewing audience and director Mungiu wisely stays out of the way. He keeps an unflinching eye on the whole affair and lets you decide for yourself.

Director Mungiu's style is not flashy. He uses long takes and tracking shots to try to achieve veracity. This proves successful. With his choices, Mungiu gives the impression more of video diarist than manipulator. He tricks you into believing he is just a passive observer and this allows him more easily to avoid passing judgment on any particular character or action. Mungiu disappears into the film.

4 Months is not a pleasurable film. The director sustains tension throughout the movie and never provides catharsis, even in conclusion. This is a sad story well told and unrelentingly tense. One of the year's best, but you leave the film ill at ease, angered. But art should provoke and unsettle. By this measure, Mungiu is a master.

Seven Pounds (Dir: Gabriele Muccino)

Is Ben Thomas's story a tale of redemption or tragedy? The film has its opinion and I my own. Seven Pounds gets it wrong.

Ben Thomas (Will Smith) is an IRS agent investigating those who owe back taxes. He appears to be very unstable, assaulting unscrupulous nursing home proprietors, abusing telemarketers, and stalking hospital patients. Is there a method to his madness? The film wants to tell the story of a man steadfast in his quest, but it is actually the story of a man in desperate need of help.

Had director Muccino, who also helmed the taut Pursuit of Happyness, taken a less sentimental tone in the film's denouement, the audience might be left with an interesting moral question with which to wrestle. Instead Thomas's quest is ultimately viewed as noble and life affirming. It's a disturbing message passed along too haphazardly. Somewhere in this morally confused morass there are interesting questions about pragmatism and the value of life, but the movie is myopic when it needs to be panoramic.

The film also has some more mundane problems such as sluggish pacing. As we wait for Ben's quest to be made more clear, he moves from one seemingly disconnected encounter to the next. There is mystery in these encounters and the attentive viewer will begin to put all the pieces together, but you may also find yourself getting antsy as you wait for a pattern to emerge. The film sacrifices some needed dramatic urgency in order to preserve its mystery.

And in the end you may find yourself compelled to tears and desire to reflect on the nobility of Ben Thomas. This is as the filmmaker intended. But when you step further away from the theater, you may also find yourself deeply disturbed. I know I was.