Top Ten Films of 2009 (The Belated Edition)

Even though 2009 has come and past, I couldn't help, but find myself immersed in the films from yesteryear. Usually I'm much quicker than this, but I felt there were too many films I had to see before I weighed in on my list. Obviously my list has the caveat of missing a few films, but when I look back on the list of films that I saw throughout the year, I felt I did an admirable job of watching as many as I possibly could. But as I look back on the year, I also feel that the year wasn't a strong way to cap off the decade. Certainly there were great, great films, but the year lacked a handful of definite masterpieces. Yet, when it's all said and done, this top ten list consists of films that I feel are worth at least one watch, if not adding to your film collection. Be sure to list your favorites or what you think! Without further ado, here are my top ten films from 2009:

Top Ten:

1. (500) Days of Summer
2. Up in the Air
3. The Hurt Locker
4. Sin Nombre
5. Inglourious Basterds
6. Where the Wild Things Are
7. Up
8. District 9
9. In the Loop
10. An Education
    

Honorable Mentions: A Single Man, A Serious Man, The White Ribbon, Precious, Moon, Harry Potter and the Half Blood Prince, and Avatar.

Best Actor: Jeremy Renner (The Hurt Locker)

Runner Up: George Clooney (Up in the Air)

Best Actress: Carey Mulligan (An Education)

Runner Up: Gabby Sidibe (Precious)

Best Supporting Actor: Christoph Waltz (Inglourious Basterds)

Runner Up: Anthony Mackie (The Hurt Locker)

Best Supporting Actress: Mo'Nique (Precious)

Runner Up: Anna Kendrick (Up in the Air)

Best Cinematography: The White Ribbon

Runner Up: Where the Wild Things Are

Best Score: Where the Wild Things Are
~http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SbmXRGkgKwU

Runner Up: A Single Man

Best Original Song: "All is Love" - Karen O. (Where the Wild Things Are)~http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rAfcBwYuNDU

Runner Up: "The Weary Kind"- (Crazy Heart)

Best Original Screenplay: Quentin Tarantino (Inglourious Basterds)

Runner Up: Scott Neudstadter and Michael Weber (500 Days of Summer)

Best Director: Kathryn Bigelow (The Hurt Locker)

Runner Up: Jason Reitman (Up in the Air)

Top Ten from Year's Past:

Top Ten 2007

1. There Will Be Blood
2. The Diving Bell and the Butterfly
3. 4 Months, 3 Weeks, and 2 Days
4. Atonement
5. Juno
6. Once
7. No Country for Old Men
8. Sweeney Todd
9. Superbad
10. Hairspray

Top Ten 2008

1. The Dark Knight
2. The Wrestler
3. Slumdog Millionaire
4. Wall-E
5. In Bruges
6. Milk
7. Synecdoche, New York
8. Happy-Go-Lucky
9. Frost/Nixon
10. Let the Right One In

"A Single Man" is impeccably crafted (4.25/5)

Skepticism would be the one word to define my initial impression of "A Single Man" as it broke out of Toronto in early October. Not so much that Colin Firth's performance was highly praised, but because I couldn't fathom a decent film being constructed by a fashion designer, director Tom Ford, who seemingly had no experience in crafting film. I know it contradicts my usual mantra "every film has a chance", so go ahead and crucify me for that. While you're doing that I'm going to move on and tell you that my skepticism was unfounded and without a doubt, I was tremendously wrong. What I thought was going to be a glorified design film that just happened to have a great performance, ended up being a wonderfully shot film that aptly captures moments of devastation and resurrection. Also, as indicated, Colin Firth's performance is quite amazing.

But, let us start at the beginning. The film tells the desolate tale of George Falconer (Colin Firth), who after the death of his lover Jim (Matthew Goode)is having a hard time going on with his life. This isolation is further exacerbated by the fact that the film takes place in 1962 Los Angeles, a point and time in American history filled with paranoia and fear; as well as the lack of sympathy for those who fall under the title of homosexual. With this in mind, George internalizes his pain and love loss, as he trudges along day to day as an English professor. Yet, the film opens up on a day where things are going to change for George. It's on this day that he has decided to kill himself and rid his soul of the anguish that currently holds it down. Throughout this particular day, George plays it straight, as he knows by the end of it, he'll be gone. But, despite this rather grim plot description, I must say the film isn't entirely depressing. It's actually quite the opposite. Through the use of flashbacks and encounters with his neighbors and strangers, George's life begins to emanate different shades of colors. Suddenly what he once saw as a gray, dwindling world when he awoke, has become a world buzzing with technicolor. All of this leads to an end of the day that is both ironic and deserving.

The story itself is extremely introspective, but director Tom Ford does a fantastic job externalizing the beautiful and sorrow filled moments that fill George's day as he marches to death. With a wonderful understanding of a color palette, Ford is able to use color schemes as means for illustrating the breakdowns and breakthroughs George experiences. Whether it's when George is waking up, a moment where Ford uses a steel blue to conjure up George's stark disposition, or using a bursting glow of orange or red to show George's moments of brevity, Ford is always able to visually capture the mood and attitude of George's bleeding heart. Furthermore, Ford, along with his cinematographer Eduard Grau, is able to capture some beautiful and wonderful compositions in his shots. Some of which add a high amount of style that accompanies the depth Firth's performance possesses. In addition to this, Ford's fashion past seems to have assisted him well in the production aspect of the film, which boasts terrific designs that not only capture the early 60's, but also fills the film with fantastic style that matches the identities of each character. Once again, how foolish was I to sell Ford before I even gave him a chance? Apparently, I was very foolish.

Yet, the heart of the film resides in Colin Firth's wonderful performance. I have always respected Firth and I have always seen him as being a good actor, but he's opened my eyes to the depth he possesses, which is undeniably found in his portrayal of George. The character of George isn't one that expresses himself through dialogue anymore than he does through his body language. On the outside, Colin is able to capture George's daily struggle (and often faux performance) to muster the enthusiasm to live, but through his eyes and nuances we can sense a man who's on the way out both mentally and spiritually. In addition to the depressing aspect of George, Firth also allows for us to feel those small moments where George appreciates the life around him even if it's inevitably escaping him. A similar performance is also found from Julianne Moore, who plays George's good friend and former lover Charly. Typical to most of the characters Moore portrays, Charly is damaged goods and per usual, Moore is able to deliver a character with a vast amount of insecurities with great ease.

So, it should go without saying that the performances are the key entrance to the film, but it's Ford's artistic instinct that brings everything to life. Much like its protagonist, the film on the surface is bleak, but when looked back on, it's a rather romantic and lush look at love gained and lost, as well as the grieving process that all of us will eventually find ourselves wrapped up in. When coupled with a fantastic score, wonderful art design, and beautiful compositions, "A Single Man" is the type of film that invades mind, body, and soul through the bombardment of one's senses.

"The Blind Side" can't seem to balance its subjects (3.25/5)

Sports films are the kind of films that, no matter how cliche or familiar it is, people just simply fall in love with them. It's a rather simple formula: follow the life of an underdog, who is continually hounded by his peers, give him a sage and determination, then sit back and watch people get choked up as the underdog becomes the catalyst for a team's run to a championship. It's a tried and true formula that delivers an overdose of sentimentality. Said sentimentality is doubled when you base it around a 'true story'. So, it should come as no surprise that "The Blind Side" has formulaic moments and is heavy in sentimentality. Yet, it's this aspect of the film that I never really minded. Yes, the film does tell a 'true story' of football player Michael Oher who worked his way from poverty to NFL rookie stud with the help of a rich family, more specifically the Tuohy family. Without a doubt the life and times of Michael Oher is inspirational, as is the generosity shown by the Tuohy family, but the problem with "The Blindside" is that it can't strike a balance between both. Instead, it seems like Michael's story is merely a vehicle for the Tuohy's, rather than being the other way around.

This is an issue because we never fully come to know Michael's story and obviously his is the most interesting side to hear. Never do we see his difficulty growing up, never do we see how he adapts to his new lifestyle, and most of all we don't get a chance to see all of his accomplishments build up to a tremendous achievement: becoming an NFL player. Instead we get an over the top dose of charity from the Tuohy family.I must reiterate, the Tuohy family is gracious, but the film never seems to peg any kind of motivation for the family and their adoption of Oher. It just happens because they feel it's right. Or so the movie dictates. Director John Lee Hancock doesn't seem too interested in the voice of Oher, nor the motivations and inclinations of the Tuohy family. Instead he is far more focused on creating a glossy and smooth film that seemingly has no conflicts. No real perspective on the rich suburbs and the ghettos that encompass the Memphis landscape. No perspective on Michael's transition from being homeless to living in the house of a white family who, for whatever reason, are spending dime after dime on him. It's almost as if Hancock and his screenwriter were too afraid to disrupt the status quo; too afraid to instill some kind of cynicism in their work. It's through this lack of gull that Hancock loses Michael's perspective and from this comes a stilted interest in the Tuohy's charity which is an interest that is just blindly accepted.

So, the film floats easily along a constant breeze with no disruptions what so ever. Certainly there is a place in film for lightheartedness, but when the film seems to roll over Michael's entire life and struggle, it just feels manipulative and dishonest. Now, for as much as I have hated on the film, there are aspects that I enjoyed. The most obvious one being Sandra Bullock's performance as the matriarch of the Tuohy family, the charismatic and strong minded Lee Ann Tuohy. Bullock's performance is often the buoy of the film's drama, as she delivers some of the film's most compassionate and endearing scenes. In addition to Bullock's performance, the film at one point veered off its good natured path and attempted to tie in the assumption that the Tuohy family was acting as boosters for Michael as a means to get him to play football at their alma mater Ole Miss. This added a small (at least in the eye of the film), yet effective conflict that added some depth between Oher and his surrogate family. The problem was obviously resolved through a movie-esque speech and treated as a footnote, but it still added a level of cynicism that the film needed to counter act its sweet disposition.

But, as alluded to, such moments are passed over in favor of plot devices that are far more heartwarming and trite. Is Michael's story inspirational? Yes, but it comes at the posterization of the Tuohy family, whose charity has more clout than Michael's underdog story. And because Hancock and company are more interested in creating a safe and accessible story, the danger and peril Michael faced are contrived and treated with very little significance. My guess is that if you want to hear Michael Oher's story, it would be far more palpable and dramatic if heard from his lips or the literary source from which "The Blind Side" is based off of. At least this way we get Michael's voice and not a sugar coated perspective that only allows Michael's story to breathe for a few moments through a surrogate.

"Invictus" has the prestige, but lacks the context (3.5/5)

I had expectations for "Invictus" from the moment it went into pre-production. With names like Clint Eastwood, Morgan Freeman, and Matt Damon attached how could the film really falter? As it is with most films that are released for award consideration, sometimes prestige trumps layers. This honestly perturbs me to say this about a Clint Eastwood film. Over the last decade or so, Eastwood has certainly created his fair share of films that not only work as great stories, but also explorations into the human condition. Such examples of this would be "Letters from Iwo Jima", "Mystic River", and "Million Dollar Baby". Yet, with Eastwood pumping films out nearly every year, and in some cases two a year, he has seemingly lost his edge. This was evident in both his films from last year, "The Changeling" and "Gran Torino". Without a doubt Eastwood elevated the material in both cases, but both ended up being stilted affairs and lackluster efforts. It's not that the stories weren't present, but they lacked the compassion and direction Eastwood possessed going into them. Unfortunately it gives me great displeasure to say that Eastwood's admirable attempt to account one of Nelson Mandela's greatest moments comes out a little flat.

As expected, the film has great acting. The most praise should be heaped upon Morgan Freeman who by all accounts was born to play Mandela. Aside from being his doppelganger, at least visually, Freeman is able to generate the kind of will and determination that peacefully emanates from the pours of Mandela. I honestly can't pick another actor to portray such an important person. Accompanying Freeman in the ring of great performances is Matt Damon who gives the most physical performance of his career. Playing the role of South Africa's Rugby captain, Francois Peinaar, Damon delivers a performance filled with pride and sweat. He is not only able to capture the characteristics of his historical figure, but also does a fantastic job displaying an honest physical prowess in the Rugby scenes. Yet, the film falters in a department that Eastwood rarely falters in: telling the story. Now the premise of the film, based on real events and non-fiction account of said events, explores Nelson Mandela's attempt to reunite the blacks and whites of South Africa under the support of the nation's Rugby team. Although the wounds are still fresh under the demise of the Apartheid, Mandela puts all of his chips on the idea that the people will come together as one nation to cheer on their team in the 1995 Rugby World Cup.

A gamble that ultimately paid off for Mandela, but never does the film deliver enough context for the event to fully feel like a momentous occasion. Yes, there are moments that set up the ramifications of the Apartheid, but they seemingly only glide over the complications that arose between whites and blacks. In addition to this, there just seems to be a lack of development between the Rugby team Mandela hopes to use as a means for rebuilding a country torn apart. At one moment, the Rugby team seems opposed to Mandela's interest in them, but they end up doing a quick turn and suddenly see it as a golden opportunity. Maybe this is what happened, I don't really know, but never does the team's new found faith in Mandela and their country feel honest. It just seems it had to turn because that's what the film called for. It's this attention to detail and context that really made it difficult for me to catch on to the inspiration. Some will say the film plays out like a conventional sports film, which I don't disagree with, but that's not the problem here. It didn't stunt the inspiration, it was the build up that drained the heart for me.

But the lack of context didn't stay within the conflict between whites and blacks,it also spread through the many scenes that dealt with the Rugby matches themselves. Now, I'm not a purveyor of Rugby by any means and I certainly don't think a film should spell it out for me, but when the film attempts to stir my soul through the use of a match, it better well make sure I understand at least some aspect of the game. Without an understanding of the game, then I'm more caught up in trying to figure out what's going on than I am getting caught up in the game's emotional results. Certainly near the end of the film I was able to figure out some aspects of the game, but I never fully understood it and I never fully got caught up in the rich and historical drama that was generated on the Rugby field. Is this to say that "Invictus" is a bad film? No, it has some grand moments and obviously some terrific performances, but those can only go so far when the story lacks the back story and build up it deserves, especially when said story is based on a momentous moment in a country's tumultuous history.