The 10 Best Films of 2008
December 31, 2008
By Sam Watermeier
Although my colleague, Mitch Ringenberg and I compiled a list of the five best films of the year earlier this month, I’d like to present my own full Top 10 list as it represents a tradition withheld by all film critics.
I have yet to see some of the major contenders (”Frost/Nixon,” “The Wrestler,” “Revolutionary Road”). However, I didn’t have the patience to wait for those to come out before making my Top 10. So, without further ado… Read more
Recovering from ‘The Dark Knight’
December 28, 2008
Everyone needs to chill out over “The Dark Knight.” Yes, it is a great movie and yes, it transcends the comic book genre. Unfortunately, though, people have talked it to death. I find myself tired of it by now when I try to watch it on DVD and I know I am not the only one. Now, don’t get me wrong– I think “The Dark Knight” definitely deserves recognition. However, other movies are being left to the wayside because of it. “W.”, Oliver Stone’s take on George W. Bush, was equally provocative and just as worthy of a conversation starter. However, after roughly a month, it virtually disappeared off the face of the planet. When I try to tell people about it now, most of the time their reaction is, “What is ‘W.’?”
Another bone I have to pick with “The Dark Knight” is in regards to it being called “groundbreaking” by critics. I’m sorry, but it is not groundbreaking. Many other superhero films have tried to be gritty. Tim Burton for one deserves more credit. He was the filmmaker that tried to steer the “Batman” franchise in a darker, more serious direction in the first place with “Batman” and “Batman Returns” (both are greatly underappreciated). Director Ang Lee also tried to blend quirky comic book elements with heavy drama in “Hulk,” another criminally underrated film. However, maybe the problem lies in the fact that the quirky elements are still intact with those films. With the reaction to “The Dark Knight,” I’m starting to think that people do not really want genuine comic book movies anymore. If you really think about it, “The Dark Knight” is not a genuine comic book movie because it does not have the quirky elements of comics and it seems to stand against them completely. This isn’t necessarily a bad thing. “The Dark Knight” is just more of a heavy crime drama than a ”comic book movie.” It’s more like ”Heat” than “Spider-Man 2.” Therefore, people should stop viewing it as “superior” to other comic book movies when it really belongs to another genre: crime drama. It’s story is about much more than Batman and what it means to be a superhero. Therefore, even though it is based on a comic book, it is unfair to compare it to other superhero films when it tries to completely defy the genre.
I love “The Dark Knight.” I really do and I am not just jumping on the bandwagon in saying that. However, enough is enough. It came out five months ago, people! It’s time to move on.
Hollywood’s Hall of Presidents
November 6, 2008
With a new president and changing government, we present the top five political films, as well as a soon-to-be classic
“W.” may well be the best film of the year. However, it is only one of many great political based movies in film history. Here are some more political films worth watching to celebrate this electio
This is another film like “W.” that does not condemn a president’s behavior, but genuinely tries to understand it. Director Oliver Stone and Anthony Hopkins as Nixon take a mature and objective approach to the material. The film shows all sides of Nixon including his infamous Watergate days, but also his sadly lesser known accomplishments such as his establishment of diplomatic relations in China and formation of a treaty to limit strategic nuclear weapons in Russia. This film shows that when it comes to political stories, it is possible to be fair and balanced.
This film is daring for creating comedy out of fear: fear of nuclear war, fear of dictators. It provides a cathartic experience. It is rare to find comic relief in issues such as nuclear annihilation, but being the master he is, writer-director Stanley Kubrick (“The Shining,” “Full Metal Jacket,” “A Clockwork Orange”) made this story into an enduring comedy masterpiece. It is perhaps the best satire on the politics of war ever made.
3. “The Contender”
This film about a female vice presidential candidate suffering from unpopularity and scandalous accusations is more relevant now than ever. At the time of its release, “The Contender” heavily mirrored the story of Bill Clinton’s Monica Lewinski debacle with its exploration of scandals and rumors bringing down politicians. Now, the film mirrors Sarah Palin’s situation. This proves that this film will remain relevant for years to come with its universal themes.
4. “Bulworth”
A hilarious and greatly underappreciated film, “Bulworth” is about a presidential candidate that can’t seem to keep his mouth shut or stop trying to be hip. He even raps about socialism at one point. This film, directed by its star Warren Beatty (“Reds,” “Dick Tracy”), is a brilliant satire on politicians’ desperate desire to be celebrities. Like “The Contender,” this film’s satirical material proves timeless especially after seeing Barack Obama dancing on “Ellen” recently as well as Sarah Palin’s appearance on “Saturday Night Live.”
5. “Good Night, and Good Luck”
Although it is more about powerful journalism than politics, this film exposes government paranoia and political prejudice with its story of Edward Murrow’s defiance of McCarthyism. The CBS reporter’s attack on Senator Joseph McCarthy exposed dangerous flaws in politicians and made for a proud moment in television history. This is a hard-hitting film that inspires us to question politicians.
‘W.’ stuns with emotional portrayal
November 6, 2008
In an early scene from “W.,” a character says, “Politics do not define a human being. There’s more to people than how they vote.” This statement is the key to director Oliver Stone’s (“Platoon,” “JFK,” “Wall Street”) take on George W. Bush. WARNING: “W.” is far from the full-fledged, biting satire the previews suggest. While it does poke fun at the President’s inarticulateness and occasional confusion, Stone is never mean-spirited. His effort is to humanize Bush by exploring his insecurities and frustrations. By focusing more on his personal life than his politics, Stone gives Bush’s story a universal appeal.
“W.” bounces back and forth from Bush’s time as President to his early days of hard partying and failed jobs. The film shows how Bush’s recklessness deeply disappointed his father, played by the excellent James Cromwell. This disappointment is the catalyst for Bush’s insecurity. Much of the film depicts his struggles to impress people, especially his father. No matter what he accomplishes (even becoming President), he never gets the respect and love he wants from his family and peers. This is the real tragedy behind “W.” that makes it such a poignant character study.
For the emotional power that results from this biopic journey, give credit to Josh Brolin for his sympathetic portrayal of our current president. He transcends mere imitation of Bush and creates a charismatic and often tragic character. He engages the audience by portraying Bush as an everyman. At times when he is being panned by the media for his political decisions, his charm evokes sympathy. Brolin also brings a saddening pensiveness to the role. In every scene, he makes Bush seem like he is quietly judging himself. By the end of the film, he convinces the audience that Bush has no respect for himself and that he will never love or accept himself for who he is. The most important strength of Brolin’s performance, though, is his ability to cause the viewer to empathize with Bush not only as a character but also as the President in reality. This is quite the feat considering Bush is one of the least popular presidents in American history.
—
“W.”
Directed by: Oliver Stone
Rating: PG-13
Overall: A
A look back at the sequels to my favorite film
October 30, 2008
It should be well-known by now that my favorite film of all time is “The Matrix.” It is the perfect blend of “popcorn entertainment,” thought-provoking philosophies, and human drama (the three main attractions to moviegoing in the first place, right?) With its high quality as both a sci-fi action spectacle and challenging drama, it opened my eyes to the possibilities of film and gave me my first sense of “movie magic.” Released in 1999, its questions are still relevant to this day especially to teenagers like myself. In an age where we are losing touch with humanity in favor of e-mail and text messaging for communication, it asks, “Are we becoming slaves to technology? Do we still control machines or do they control us?” It also tackles the big, universal questions like, “Why are we here and what defines reality?” It’s the headiest moviegoing experience I’ve ever had. Therefore, when the sequels came out, I was beyond excited. I was freaking out. Imagine a sequel being made to your all-time favorite movie– I was anxious, worried, hopeful, confident, and thrilled at the same time. When I saw the preview for “The Matrix Reloaded,” my jaw literally hit the floor (Wow, how cliché did that sound?) Even with my enormous enthusiasm for “The Matrix,” this is the first time I’ve actually written about “The Matrix Reloaded” and “The Matrix Revolutions.” So, buckle your seatbelts. Here we go…
“The Matrix Reloaded”
“The Matrix” brought sophistication and depth to the sci-fi action genre with its unique philosophies. “Reloaded” is basically a diluted version of “The Matrix.” It has all of the action from the first film, but very little insight. In fact, its philosophical elements are insulting in comparison to the first film. When it tries to be interesting or intelligent like the original, it just comes off as pure, silly “mumbo-jumbo.” It is so “mumbo-jumbo” in fact that it seems almost like a parody of “The Matrix.”
The good news? The action sequences in “Reloaded” are nothing short of spectacular. They are truly breathtaking. From a fight scene with hundreds of Agent Smith clones to the freeway chase, the film provides plenty of excitement and intensity. Like the first film, its special effects and groundbreaking and awe-inspiring. Because of its lack of depth though, it is “just a movie” whereas “The Matrix” is a really profound, unforgettable film.
“The Matrix Revolutions”
“The Matrix Revolutions” is an improvement over “Reloaded.” It delivers the poetry that “Reloaded” definitely lacked. The last act is almost like a fairy tale in that Neo and Trinity travel to the Oz-like Machine City which takes on the quality of “a forbidden forest” with its sinister machine bugs and moody atmosphere. It is reminiscent of a Grimm Brothers tale. Like the first film, it tackles universal themes like love and death.
My Ratings
“The Matrix:” A+
“The Matrix Reloaded:” B
“The Matrix Revolutions:” B+
Well, there you have it. I finally revealed my opinion of the “Matrix” sequels. Most people were severely disappointed by the sequels unlike me, so I encourage you readers to debate with me about these films. Rebuttal, anyone?
Ready for the dawn?
October 30, 2008
This year, movies are taking a refreshing change of direction. Although it was a great year for film, 2007 was awfully grim in overall tone. With stark thrillers like “Zodiac” and “No Country for Old Men” and hard-hitting metaphorical films on the War in Iraq like “There Will be Blood,” 2007 films were riddled with violence and grittiness. Films this year are much more hopeful and tender. Just look at the whimsical “Synecdoche, New York” about a quirky playwright or “The Curious Case of Benjamin Button” about a man who ages backwards. These films are reminiscent of the Golden Age of cinema when movies provided a total escape from issues at the time. Last year, films were tough and “in-your-face.” Even Oliver Stone’s George W. Bush biopic “W.” takes a softer, surprisingly compassionate approach to such sensitive material as the war and Bush’s political follies. Josh Brolin also provides a sympathetic portrayal of Bush. Films this year are a breath of fresh air. They provide the much-needed light after last year’s darkness. They are also symbolic of our time– the time of change, the time of a new president. My answer is obvious, but I’m going to pose a question to you readers: does Hollywood need to relieve people with these lighter films or should filmmakers continue to make hard-hitting, relevant, intense stories? Which do you prefer and why?
Multimedia/Links »
Video
Get the Flash Player to see this player.Photo of the Day
Photo Essays
Advertisement
Events in Carmel
| Mon | Tue | Wed | Thu | Fri | Sat | Sun |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | |||
| 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 |
| 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 |
| 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 |
| 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | |
Current Survey
Polls
Loading ...Recent Comments
Recent Comments
- Evan Dossey on Recovering from ‘The Dark Knight’
- cece on “Twilight” movie a disappointment to even the most devout fans
- Amazing Weight Loss Story on Dieting, weight loss views clash
- luk on “Twilight” movie a disappointment to even the most devout fans
- Kaity Just on 4-H involvement here not typical for students