THE LOSERS trailer is full of yellow things
Apr 07 
I sure hope you like the colour yellow, because The Losers appears to have a lot of it: cars, locations, explosions and even lights fill the screen with colours like gold and custard and mustard and … why do those words rhyme? Because they’re both yellow foods? Huh.
The Losers is about a bunch of special-ops soldier-types who get betrayed by their agencies and decide to take revenge. Pretty dull on paper, but it’s the characters that’ll likely sell you, and the actors portraying those characters. Jeffrey Dean Morgan (from Watchmen) heads up the team, with Idris Elba, Columbus Short and Óscar Janaeda filling out the ranks; meanwhile Chris Evans plays (against type) a curiously bespectacled, bright-coloured-shirt-wearing fellow who appears to be the comic relief. Seeing Evans in flexible, self-deprecating roles like in this and Scott Pilgrim Vs The World will be a nice change of pace until Captain America hits screens, that’s for sure. Then there’s Zoe Saldana, from Star Trek (and that other sci-fi film from 2009), who brings suggestive poses, sexy-time and double-entendres to the proceedings. Oh, and Jason Patric shows up as the bad guy, if you’re wondering.
Besides dripping in yellow, The Losers trailer contains a hint of some inventive action scenes, and a glimpse of the kind of sarcastic wit that will be employed in place of character development. Being a comic-book adaptation, we can’t expect too much from The Losers — or can we? Shouldn’t comic-book movies be just as good as any other movie thrown onto a giant silver screen? Unfortunately the trailer for The Losers is so disjointed and discombobulated that it’s hard to tell how well the action and one-liners work in context, so we’ll just have to wait and see what it’s like when it hits screens in a few weeks’ time.
The Losers comes out in the UK in just two days (crikey!) on the 9th of April, 2010; US release set for the 23rd of April, with Australia again lagging behind with a 20th of May release. Directed by Sylvain White, based on the Vertigo and DC comics.
The 7 best comic book movies
Jan 11
The Joker turns 70 this year. The clown prince premiered in the northern hemisphere spring of 1940 in Batman’s first standalone series. Batman himself, as well as Superman and some other, lesser-known characters, are a few years older even than Mr J. Back then it was all about domino masks, tights, capes, and good-old-fashioned crime-fighting, with a dash of Freudian introspection on the side. With the exception of Superman, ostensibly the first super-powered comic book hero, straight detective stories were favoured for a good many years till the likes of Marvel popularised super-powers in the fifties and sixties and the genre exploded. Comic books were respectable back then. Hypermasculine men fought each other while hyperfeminine women floated around in the background; morals were unquestioned; the pulpy, predictable serials were tasteful and plain, unadorned with such concerns as sexuality, racism or moral ambiguity. Crime was duly punished, and justice was pursued in a cheap, disposable monthly medium affordable to the average middle-class American kid.
In the 80s comics underwent something of a rennaissance. Batman was rebooted in a grittier, morally challenging storyline, the X-Men got serious with Wolverine’s brutal training in Tokyo finally explored, and out of a hole in the sky fell the Watchmen series, one of very few successful stand-alone comic books. Since that sudden reversal of content comic books have floundered in an endless torrent of glossy, cookie-cutter superhero stories. The art styles have gotten more sleek and gratuitous in their anatomic inaccuracies, but the actual content, as far as this detached, casual observer can tell, hasn’t developed into anything really worth taking notice of.
The 90s saw a brief rush of comic book movies — The Mask, Spawn, Men In Black — that were okay, performing so-so at the box office, but it wasn’t until Bryan Singer’s X-Men that the world finally got a superhero flick that did justice to its (overrated) source material. It was fun, subversive, mature and posed a few interesting sci-fi questions, while telling a remarkably personal tale with emotion and flourish. After the critical and commercial success of this pioneering film the floodgates were opened and in the past decade we’ve seen just about every single major character in the Marvel stable trotted out for a cinematic outing or two, and DC haven’t slacked off in their contribution either. But the vast majority of these films have been mindless dross homogenised by the Hollywood machine — witness The Fantastic Four, Daredevil, Elektra, The Spirit, etc., for evidence of this.
There have, however, been many shining lights in the dark. Here are the seven best comic book movies as judged by yours truly.
7 - V For Vendetta (2005)
Socio-political commentary has a propensity to become dangerously dull. How do you make it interesting, you ask? Add masked vigilantism, a fascist regime, some huge explosions, and Tchaikovsky to it. A dark, apparently faithful adaptation of the “graphic novel” (isn’t it cute when they try to sound mature?) of the same name, the V film is dark, violent, and socially relevant. The themes of freedom, justice and masked vigilantism are classic comic book fare, but here it’s all wrapped up in a smart, mature tale that’s pretty fun to watch.
6 – Road To Perdition (2002)
Bet you didn’t know this was originally a comic book. Actually I bet you didn’t even see this movie, hardly anyone did. But it’s got Tom Hanks in it, and a pre-Bond Daniel Craig, not to mention Paul Newman, some delicious cinematography, and some cool shootouts. The story is a tad melodramatic and simplistic, but the scrambled morality of gangster lifestyles is explored in a more compelling manner here than in any Scorcese flick to date. Sam Mendes, of American Beauty, directs.
5 – Iron Man (2008)
Funnyman Jon Favreau miraculously wound up at the helm of this (by ’08) routine superhero origin flick, the first act in an inevitable franchise. Thankfully Favreau kept the film sharp with the casting of Robert Downey, Jr. in the title role as Iron Man / Tony Stark, whose moral compass isn’t as concrete as Spidey’s or the Bat’s, and in the film’s fresh, brisk pace and tone. Anyone who claims not to have had fun watching Iron Man is lying.
4 – X-Men 2 (2003)
Captain Jean-Luc Picard scoots around in a mind-controlled wheelchair, staring people down and unleashing his merry band of mutants on the world, trying to make it a better place, while Gandalf the Grey floats around in a metal bucket for a helmet trying to stop Picard for no other reason than “the Nazis killed my parents, therefore everyone deserves to die.” Okay, okay, there’s more to this sequel to the film that started the heroic avalanche in 2000 — some breathtaking action set-pieces, some palpable drama between the main characters, a very cool sci-fi aesthetic, and the kind of professional filmmaking usually reserved for “serious” movies. X2 perfectly rides the line between mindless entertainment and intellectual stimulation, with great performances all round. Shame about X-Men 3 and X-men: Origins: Wolverine: The Prequel: The Beginning.
3 – The Dark Knight (2008)
Oh Christopher Nolan, you simultaneously delight and disappoint me. The Dark Knight is a big, loud, dark, complex film on every level. Christian Bale’s Batman, introduced in the middling Batman Begins, faces his first true test as a superhero in the form of Heath Ledger’s ultra-villain the Joker. The Joker’s wicked anarchic sense of humour is simultaneously amusing and terrifying, and Ledger’s performance of the character is the stuff of cinema legend. He inhabits the role, a role invested with such realism and integrity as to be utterly repulsive but ultimately fascinating and compelling at the same time. Bats is forced to question his own morality and identity in the face of the Joker’s cruel and unusual pranks and set-ups, meanwhile contending with a psychotically deranged Harvey Dent / Two-Face incited to violence by the Clown Prince himself. Batman’s dark, ugly world is a thematically beautiful and intellectually interesting place: every villain in Gotham City has a fascinating aspect to their psyche, and Batman invariably winds up being the most boring character in anything he’s in. The reason I don’t love Nolan’s second bat-flick is because it’s so cool, so loud, so flashy, so dark and awesome and gritty that there’s very little actual character to latch onto when all is said and done. The emotion is there, it’s just buried miles deep beneath layers and layers of crowd-pleasing aesthetic stylings.
2 – Watchmen (2009)
Having just criticised The Dark Knight for being shallow, I feel a pang of guilt including Watchmen in a higher position on this list. It is literally a shot-for-shot, visual-effects-driven recreation of the original comic book, but beneath the arguably flimsy veneer is the single most coherent, challenging and daring narratives in the history of comics. Some masked vigilante kills some other masked guy, and there’s a scientist who was de-atomised and is now a blue god, and there’s some Rorschach-wearing clown going around being unpredictably awesome for some reason — the plot merely serves as a prism through which comic books can be deconstructed and scrutinised and then spat back out as a damning observation of the world circa 1985, and as such, it is amazingly fun to watch. I identified most with John Osterman (Billy Crudup) as he undertook the journey to coming to terms with his superpowers: Dr Manhattan, as he is known, is an immediately more realistic depiction of a superhero than was ever depicted before Watchmen hit the shelves — he’s over the whole infinite power thing, he’s over seeing through time, and he’s bored of life as we know it. I guess that’s the kind of thing ultimate power brings you — boredom. So why do we all spend our lives scurrying to secure a slice of the power pie? Imagine thoughts like this, suggested constantly and in every scene of this visually entertaining flick, and you have some sense of the extent to which I was engaged and challenged.
1 – Spider-Man 2 (2004)
Ah, the amazing Spider-Man. The original Spidey flick was one of the earlier superhero flicks, and one of the better ones. Director Sam Raimi infused the story with enough classic character archetypes, modern references, universal coherence and pure, undiluted emotion for the film to be a promising start to the franchise. But it was nothing compared to the first and as yet only good sequel, in which the characters set up in the first film are dutifully knocked down in one of the most brutal, uncompromising but ultimately optimistic middle acts in the history of cinema. I enjoy every single scene of this movie, and it’s one of those few movies I could watch a dozen times and not become utterly sick of.
So there you have it, Froley’s favourite 7 comic book movies!
Honourable mention should go to 1978′s Superman for setting the bar for superhero dramas in their current form; Zack Snyder’s 300 proved that sometimes even slavish adaptation of the oft-maligned source material can prove to be entertaining; and David Cronenberg’s A History Of Violence barely even resembles a comic book movie at all, what with the lack of capes and superpowers and whatnot, and is all the better for the absence of such silly things.
What are some of your favourite comic book movies of all time? Do you think Hollywood has gone a little costume-crazy since X-Men was released, ten years ago? Do you think the style of storytelling and characterisation inherent in comic books is leaking into non-comic book movies? I want to know what you think, dammit!
SPIDER-MAN review: power, responsibility, spandex
Jan 10
2002 was something of a big year for high-concept fantasy blockbusters. Spider-Man debuted strongly even against the inevitable power of the second Star Wars prequel, Attack Of The Clones, and then later in the year the second Harry Potter flick duked it out against the middle Lord Of The Rings. Those of us lucky enough to be that perfect target-demographic age of 12 that year found ourselves going to the cinema a lot, and often. The kind of escapism afforded by these flashy tales of noble heroes was perfect for us, and it was a golden age for the wish-fulfilment hero fantasy niche.
But let me finally take off my rose-tinted nostalgia-goggles and watch Spider-Man with older, sharper, more cynical eyes. Let’s see if it holds up to memory, and, more importantly, let’s see if it holds up favourably against the many, many movies that have come before and since. The short answer is ‘yes’ — Spider-Man is actually one of the proverbial good comic book adaptations, and despite a bevy of flaws, it manages to whisk us away and engross us in the sometimes tedious world of teenaged geek Peter Parker for the entire two hours at its disposal.
The movie starts off with somewhat of a whimper. About twenty minutes in, I began to feel that sinking disappointment you feel when you realise something you cherished as a child actually sucks (what’s that feeling called? Inverse nostalgia? Nostalshit?). It’s slow and boring and a little bit too obvious, almost self-aware. And then, after what feels like the one thousandth exposition scene in a row, it hit me. Every single scene in this dull opening act is necessary. It’s like director Sam Raimi is furiously laying down the tracks just ahead of the speeding train of the rest of the film. And, although Raimi is obviously keen to get them out of the way as soon as possible, he’s determined to do each and every one of these dead scenes justice. He never cuts or truncates a scene unnecessarily, and it takes balls to stand defiantly by something most people would quickly become impatient with. “Potential franchise” was probably an oft-uttered phrase around the Sony boardroom at the time of production, and Raimi takes the time to set up the fantasy New York setting of the film, and introduce all the major characters and themes of the universe, in order for it to pay off indefinitely into the unforeseeable future. It might not be much consolation for the poor people having to endure this boring first 45 minutes, but it means that for every subsequent Spidey film, we will never be subject to such a cold, necessary but uninteresting setup, ever again. When the film finally does get going, it really gets going, and there really aren’t any more structural defects to speak of.
Allow me a quick diversion. Comic books are frequently maligned as being ”for children.” The juvenile demographic buying the comics ensures that the comic book publishers cater mostly to juveniles — it’s a vicious cycle, with the result that something that started out as an interesting, potentially artistic hybrid of movies and books exploring the nature of crime, punishment, vigilantism, and heroism instead finds itself stuck in the cultural ghetto, where it’s been for decades. Before all those comic book nerds out there start whining about Watchmen, I challenge you to name another comic book series that is anywhere near as cerebral, challenging and socially relevant. Sure, Batman has a strict ethical code that is frequently tested by the fiendishly entertaining criminals of Gotham City, and sure, Wolverine is an anti-hero with claws coming out of his hands, but no other comic book franchise is unified or coherent enough to approach the focused, direct cultural suckerpunch Watchmen unleashed on us all. Plus, Watchmen actually ends, unlike the boringly immortal Superman and company. And don’t even start with that Sin City stuff — one-dimensional bloody noir with a unique art style does not a literary classic make.
Spider-Man has the advantage of time on his side. Published in the 60s as a counter to DC’s runaway Batman and Superman comics, Marvel’s The Amazing Spider-Man also featured a tights-wearing crime-fighting vigilante, but featured a much more relatable protagonist than the rich playboy Bruce Wayne or the, erm, entirely alien Kal-El: Peter Parker, regular guy, high school geek, unlucky in love, ploughing headlong through that hormonal drug trip named puberty. This was a guy a lot of people could relate to. Add to this a cheeky sense of humour and some classic morals and you have a keeper: Spider-Man comics are still published to this day (but for the love of god don’t expect a linear chronology or narrative to the books — comics have this horrible tendency to constantly reboot, refresh, or relocate-to-a-parrallel-universe their most popular characters. This is annoying, to say the least).
Sorry for the history lesson there, I tried to keep it brief, but it helps frame this film against its peers and its source. Anyway, where was I? Right, so comic books are a distinctly American phenomenon, and as such feature uniquely American characters and themes. Heroes have been around since the dawn of storytelling, but the way Americans in particular define and represent heroes is clumsy and shallow yet somehow very compelling. The Spider-Man story features a lot of wish-fulfilment, as well as representing a kind of coming-of-age, discovery-of-identity, bildungsroman not dissimilar to the Star Wars story, but in Spidey’s case, it could all be a metaphor for puberty and high school, two things which really shouldn’t be allowed in a room together.
Okay, okay, we’re finally back to the film. The reason we sit through it, the reason we endure the sometimes-cheesy dialogue and occasionally-overwrought performances, is because of Tobey Maguire’s performance as Peter Parker struggling to juggle family life, study, and the pursuit of his dream girl with saving the world every weekend. Tobey Maguire is a revelation in this. You’d think his buggy eyes and pouty lips would discount him from the hero game, but his physical quirks end up working with, and not against, him. He just seems like an everyday kid. We believe every single emotion telegraphed through those big, soft eyes: every single feeling rings true, and so we are compelled to believe him. He’s gifted but socially inept. Every single child in the history of the universe has felt socially inept at least once, and every single child in the history of the universe has been told by their parents (often erroneously) that they are special and gifted, and so every single audience member who can remember their childhood is compelled to root for Peter as he struggles against increasingly insurmountable odds. That he becomes physically intimidating, with lightning reflexes, and that he saves the world and receives showers of adulation, and that he ends up winning the heart of the girl — all these things become our reward for having invested in this caricature of our childhood hopes and dreams.
Raimi builds the film well for the bittersweet catharsis of the final scenes. Spidey’s occupation is prohibitive to long-term commitments and relationships, but Peter wants nothing more than to love and be loved by Kirsten Dunst’s girl-next-door Mary-Jane. This conflict between his want — the girl — and his need — to be Spider-Man and rid New York of crime — is a classic storytelling device, and it pays off here in spades because the writers and editors invest just the right amount of time swinging like a pendulum back and forth between each. It’s all tied together by Maguire’s awesome, inviting performance and Raimi’s uncharacteristically restrained direction.
When I first saw this film, I of course had no idea who Sam Raimi was. I was 12, why should I? His hand is only visible in some of the shots he chooses — the occasional swinging crane or jib shot, the occasional low-angle or crash-zoom — and the inclusion of old pal Bruce Campbell in an amusing (but, to a 12-year-old) confusing cameo. Let it not be said that Raimi should ever be obliged to return to his comic horror roots. Here he shows that he is as capable of spinning a classic yarn as he is disassembling and satirising one. The fact is that the Spider-Man films, more than any other film or series of films, actually cracks through to my emotions. It does it effortlessly, seamlessly, and I admire and respect and appreciate Raimi’s efforts in bringing this wonderful experience to me.
There are, of course, flaws to the film. The dialogue is as cheesy as an American burger. There’s a solid line in the sand between dialogue that is tolerable and dialogue that is intolerable, and screenwriter David Koepp spasms back and forth over this line like a freshly caught fish. If a single cheesy line is a dealbreaker for you, avoid this film. The fantasy universe of the film is similarly naff, but the film’s performance and professionalism are enough to suspend my (usually more finicky) disbelief. The villain, while unusually compelling and relatable for a comic-book baddie, seems completely out of place in the story, almost like “Green Goblin” was picked out of a hat of potential villains. Sure, he’s crazy and clever enough to force Spidey through his first major Hero’s Test — save the girl or suffer the children — but surely a more visually and emotionally engaging villain could have fulfilled the same function. Forcing a personal relationship with the unmasked villain is also a bit annyoing, as it adds to the business of an already busy film. And finally, I usually hate to mention source material when discussing film adaptations, but indulge me just this once. In the comics, Peter is dating receptionist Betty, while a running gag is that Aunt May is trying to set Peter up with plain Jane Mary-Jane from next door. I wouldn’t mind the screen-writing switcheroo (it is, in fact, vital to the story), except for a pair of very simple, obvious facts: Kirsten Dunst plays MJ, and Elizabeth Banks plays Betty. Dunst is too cute to take seriously, especially in the make-up and lighting Raimi drenches her in, but Banks is, well, Elizabeth Banks. She’s just about perfect in every way you can think of, and then a few more you can’t. It was a bit of a casting oversight to give a bit role to a woman infinitely more attractive than the heroine, whose very existence propels the entirety of the narrative. Okay, okay, subjective gripe, but seriously … Elizabeth Banks …
On the positive side, we get a mature, cathartic and extremely well-put-together exploration of what the term “hero” means when applied to real people. We get amazing performances from a great cast (JK Simmons as J Jonah Jameson is one of my favourite film characters of all time). We get some inventive and visually stunning aerial combat / travel sequences. But most importantly we get a promise: this film is just a beginning, and all the emotion, drama and tension hinted at here will bear itself out over the course of several sequels. Usually I don’t want a film to beckon a sequel, but in this case, I find the thought of a future without a Sam Raimi-helmed Spider-Man film a rather dull one indeed.
Overall, your enjoyment of this film hinges on a whole bunch of predispositions I can’t proclaim to be able to predict. I reckon I can safely wager you were once a child, but I can’t force myself to believe you’ll take cheesy scenes and lame dialogue seriously, or that you’ll entertain the almost soap-operatic labyrinth of relationships set up in the film, or that you’ll even make it through the excruciating open act, which even I find boring. But the film works for me, and, most importantly, it elicits genuine emotions in me. Fun ones, too, like longing, hope, guilt, laughter and that elusive catharsis, all gleaned vicariously from Tobey Maguire as Spider-Man. And that, for me, cements Spider-Man as a bona fide favourite, the kind of subjective pleasure nobody can diminish or remove — and that, as much as meaningful and provocative art, is what film is all about.
Spider-Man score
74/100
Froley’s Top 5 of 2009
Jan 01
Just kidding, New Moon is not only not in my top 5, it is one of the worst movies of all time. But now that I’ve got your attention, let’s look at 5 movies that were actually worthwhile in the otherwise weak cinematical year that was 2009. Bear in mind that up until December I wasn’t reviewing everything I saw, and I generally didn’t go out of my way to catch smaller or more obscure films, so these top 5 are culled from the three-dozen-odd mainstream films I saw over the course of the year (beginning with Yes Man in January and finishing with Sherlock Holmes this week). There were a lot of stinkers, quite a few that were just ‘meh,’ and a very few that were actually good. So without further ado, here are 5 of my favourite 09 films.
5 – Zombieland (78/100)
Fresh, funny, and frightening in equal measure, Zombieland was the quasi-original kick in the arse Hollywood needed so desperately in a year dominated by sequels, reboots, reimaginings, reinvisionings, reinventions, etc., etc. A sharp script, good characters, great performances, some truly wicked special effects, and a kind of fanciful charm boosted this flick head and shoulders above its competition. Undeniable fun.
4 – District 9
The trailer for District 9 — that first teaser where they interview the alien but you can’t understand what it’s saying — was amazing. It was so amazing, in fact, that it overshadowed the film itself, which failed to deliver on this uniquely intellectual and chilling premise, instead settling for a routine actioner set in a unique location with some great and memorable characters. Wikus’ reluctant journey into becoming an alien mirrors that of Jake Sully‘s, but is infinitely more complex, dichotomous and challenging than the cookie-cutter morality James Cameron forces us to swallow. District 9 had enough original action scenes and intellectual goings-on to elevate it to Top 5 status, but it isn’t exactly a classic of the genre.
3 – Sherlock Holmes (83/100)
A surprise late-contender for a Top 5 spot, Guy Ritchie’s rough-and-tumble, anachronistic, misanthropic, utterly compelling take on the old Sherlock Holmes tales earns a spot for the wonderful dialogue, top-notch performances, technically flawless script and virtuoso action scenes underpinning the film. In this case the trailer does the film an injustice, promising eye-rolling one-liners and cheap sex appeal, when in the fact the flim delivers at least partially on the kind of intellect, wit, charm and mystery you’d expect from the master sleuth. Bravo old chap.
2 – Moon
I went into Moon cold, with only a few positive words from critics and a brief synopsis enough to lure me all the way to the other side of the city to see it. I didn’t watch a single trailer, didn’t clap eyes on a single poster — like I said, cold. That’s the way you need to see the film, because the way it masterfully unfolds and subtly seeps into your brain is unique to a first-viewing. I definitely want to see it again, and will probably be more satisfied for the second viewing, but the initial confusion / comprehension / resignation stages induced by the film’s masterful structure, setting and — most importantly — performance is something you can’t replicate. If you haven’t seen Moon, see it.
1 – Star Trek (88/100)
How the hell did this blockbuster schmaltz end up at number 1? you ask. Because it’s a damn good film, I reply. Sure it’s embarrassing that a hyperactive Star Wars / Star Trek hybrid could take the number one spot, especially over smaller, darker films like District 9 and Moon, but whereas those films are more personal explorations of intelligent sci-fi ideas, Star Trek blasts full throttle out of the optimistic, idyllic, holistic vision future prescribed by series creator Gene Roddenberry, and gives us a future to feel good about. We aren’t just dealing with grim, isolated main characters here, we have a whole ensemble, and rather than tackling a single aspect of the future and technology, we get a more holistic approach, complete with black holes, time travel, space travel, space combat, alien lovin’, and so on. The fact that Star Trek successfully balances all those disparate elements elevates it above the more focused narratives of the aforementioned films, and lands it squarely on the number one spot. That, and the fact that I didn’t enjoy a film this year quite as much as I did Star Trek, and that kind of subjectivity is all that really counts when it comes to film, right?
Right, time for a few quick honourable mentions: Watchmen blew me away in Imax back in March, and gave me so much food for thought (as well as stunning imagery and a perfect soundtrack) that it was in my Top 5 until I saw Sherlock Holmes. Observe And Report gave me a few conflicted chuckles, as well as containing the single best use of the Pixies’ “Where Is My Mind” (take that, Fight Club) in any film, ever. Capitalism: A Love Story was trademark Moore — incendiary, biased, manipulative, terrifying, enlightening, but disappointingly uplifting. As good as the doco was, it was half an hour too long and used a few too many hypocritical elements to make its points (Catholic priests decrying materialistic greed? Please!). Cloudy With A Chance Of Meatballs surprised in its comedy and honesty, and was likewise a Top 5 contender until I remembered how awesome Moon and District 9 were. And finally, 500 Days Of Summer was actually pretty good; I was worried the soundtrack would be crammed full of indie bullshit, but it was actually quite respectful and the script was original enough to keep me thoroughly entertained, even when the lovers’ actions stopped making sense.
There were quite a few disappointingly average film this year, like Avatar, Slumdog Millionaire, Gran Torino, and Zack And Miri Make A Porno (all films by masters of the craft, all falling into the ‘merely good’ category); G.I. Joe seemed fun and coherent in direct comparison to Transformers 2; Public Enemies mixed dreadful casting with atrocious artistic choices and a predictable-as-hell script to come out as purely ho-hum; Bruno failed to resonate like Borat; Harry Potter 6 represented a slip in the already mediocre quality of the series; I Love You Man and The Hangover were throwaway late-noughties quote-fests with little real originality or wit; I’m gonna put Inglourious Basterds in this category because I liked it about as much as I disliked it; I think I’ll be generous and put Surrogates in here as well; and 2012 can rub shoulders with these films as well (come to think about it, I had just as much, if not more, fun watching 2012 as I did Avatar and G.I. Joe. Huh).
And then there were the actively bad films — Yes Man, Ghost Town, Friday The 13th, Terminator Salvation, Transformers 2, X-Men Origins: Wolverine, The Taking Of Pelham 1 2 3, The Final Destination, Paranormal Activity and, of course, New Moon. I never want to see any of these films ever again in my entire life, but I have a sneaking suspicion I’ll end up having to watch Transformers again for a full vitriolic review at some point, but we’ll see how we go.
So, an average year at the multiplex, with a few sparkling diamonds in the rough excrement of Hollywood’s dross machine. Like I said, I didn’t see every film this year, and I’m sure if The Hurt Locker had been released in this country in a timely fashion I would’ve seen and loved it already. What do you think — was 2009 a bad year for movies? If you cite Transformers 2 and New Moon as evidence against this, I might suffer a complete failure of faith in humanity, but I guess that’s your opinion, or whatever. Sigh. Stay tuned for Captain Howdy’s picks at the weekend.
See you all next year!
NEW MOON was the only film to crack Google most-searched of 2009
Dec 02
Might as well face facts and accept that Twilight is as huge as it is and will be around for a few more years yet, especially with the third film being released in July and reports that the fourth book might be doing a Harry Potter and being split into two films.
To further prove Twilight’s dominance as a pop-culture force to be reckoned with, Google have revealed as part of their annual Zeitgeist that New Moon was the only film-related search term to crack their overall top 10 in 2009. Not Avatar. Not Transformers 2. Not Watchmen… NEW MOON. Michael Jackson was the #1 searched term, understandably.
New Moon topped the most-search movie trailers, and the original Twilight cam in at #6. Here’s the complete Movie Trailers top 10:
- New Moon
- Transformers 2: Revenge of the Fallen
- Bruno
- Avatar
- Star Trek
- Twilight
- G.I. Joe
- 2012
- Paranormal Activity
- Watchmen
source: google
OPINIONS COUNT