76-80

Film#76 - Crazy Heart, 2009, dir. Scott Cooper

The premise: we've got Jeff Bridges, who is an aging country star who has faded from the spotlight. He travels to little bars and plays the hits for his diehard fans, who are few and far between. Maggie Gyllenhaal is a local reporter in one of the towns, and yeah, they fall in love. Colin Farrell is his old protege who is a big time success. The plot line was sometimes weak, nothing terribly interesting or anything that hasn't been done before. However, Jeff Bridges is nearly unrecognizable. He plays the role with such conviction, and this is where the (crazy) heart of the film is at. He struggles with the world around him, but this is something where those struggles really are secondary to, I know it's cliche, but the struggle within himself. I have to say it worked. He's torn in every which way and it's just too believable. Colin Farrell even was pretty convincing.

8.5/10

Film#77 - Intolerable Cruelty, 2003, dir. Joel Coen (& Ethan)

I just don't know why this was made. Well, I do know, and it's money. I'm sure in some light this movie is artistic, funny, maybe even deep. However it just came off silly, not unlike Raising Arizona, and it completely overshadows any merit. George Clooney is a divorce lawyer, and Catherine Zeta-Jones is, well, a horrible person. She, along with her group of snooty women, make their living off marrying wealthy men who are somehow obscenely successful and consequently wealthy, yet complete morons. They marry, and divorce for half the goods. I don't even know what to say here, that's the entire plot. Clooney falls for Zeta-Jones, and they have their quirky problems. This is a romantic comedy gone wrong. I'm sure someone will say, "but no, don't you see, they're redefining the genre, poking at it's obscurities and premises; it's genius!" Well, I just don't see it that way. What audience would go to see this thinking that is beyond me. It's a romantic comedy for people who not only have contempt for romantic comedies, but somehow have respect for foolish plots and unreal characters.

5.5/10

Film#78 - The Young Victoria, 2009, dir. Jean-Marc Vallee

I knocked this one off my to-see-for-the-Oscars list and well, I won't be seeing it again. It's got a great look to it, somewhat different from the typical style of films in this time period and setting, and God knows there's only a hundred million of them. Every thing looks great. I believe the people are who they say they are. Even the dialogue rings true while still being playful and edgy. My problem with this film is this: it bored me to no end. Half and hour in and I was wishing for it to end. It's very historical, which it to be expected for something based on actual people. It's political. It's 'romantic'. I put that in quotations because really, I didn't get the romantic vibe past the half way point. When Victoria and Albert are initially flirting and being set up to be together, it's actually quite charming. He's at home learning to dance and memorizing her favourite things, she's being pressured to do this and that, cross-cut with scenes of them meeting for various social occasions and innocent playful interactions ensue. Just lovely. The second half dragged on for me though. They lost that lighthearted relationship in favour of a deeper romantic relationship, as they should, but it just wasn't as enticing.

6/10

Film#79 - Traffic, 2000, dir. Steven Soderbergh

First off, I'm a big fan of multiple narratives intertwining in films. You could even say it's one of my favourite things. This one, yeah, it's phenomenal. Benicio Del Toro like I've never seen him before, but then again I've only seen him in half a dozen or so movies. Still, he's unbelievable. Really everyone is in this is. I can't say anyone's performance was no less than perfect for their character and their role in the grand scheme of things. Even Topher Grace was a perfect choice. I could talk about it's political, social, cultural, and philosophical elements but I'd say just go see it. It's really quite remarkable.

9.5/10

Film#80 - C.R.A.Z.Y., 2005, dir. Jean-Marc Vallee

After my initial disliking to Vallee as discussed earlier, I have to say this just blew me away. For a Canadian production, well, it's amazing. Truly amazing. This is such a perfect film in ever sense. It's beautiful in the way it captures the era and the air of disapproval of homosexuality of the time. But that's not what this is really about. The family in this film, mother and father, and their 5 sons, they may be the most effective portrayal of family life I've ever seen on film. I wouldn't be surprised if they were a real life family. Each main character has such depth that I can't remember the last time I saw something like this. These characters are not written as two dimensional people, set in their ways and serving a purpose to further the plot. No, they are individuals which must have been heavily based on people in Vallee's life to have such complexities to them. The plot is a product of these individuals and the way they work as a unit. It's truly driven by emotional change and development, and Marc-Andre Grondin and father Michel Cote are just inspirational in the way they interact even through their hardships. How this film isn't as globally recognized is something I just cannot even pretend to understand.

10/10

71-75

Film#71 - Collapse, 2009, dir. Chris Smith

So this is my first documentary of the year, and it's really quite something. Unlike anything I've ever seen, this film is one of the most thought-provoking things I've ever seen. The sheer amount of information thrown at you in the hour and a half interview with Michael Ruppert is overwhelming, I felt I should be taking notes. The basic idea is the film is a single interview with this man who basically throws down everything he knows about the upcoming major crisis with oil supplies. He lays out why it's a problem, where we're going and when. He's a little full of himself and his accomplishments, and in some way this film is about the mind of this man rather than what he's actually saying. What he is saying though is absolutely enthralling, just tearing apart why alternate fuel resources won't work, and giving his impression of what the world will be like in 50 years. He paints a drastic change of life for everyone and in some way I think everyone should see this just to get the idea in their head. By no means is the the end-all to researching these problems he talks about, I would even say he just scratches the surface. But what he says has such resonance and tells such a story that aside from it's real world implications, it's straight up entertaining.

8.5/10

Film#72 - Big Fan, 2009, dir. Robert D. Siegel

Take a comedic actor and add in an extraordinary screenwriter, tied up in a dramatic tale and you've pegged this movie. The general idea is Patton Oswalt, who is a comedian by trade, is an obsessive New York Giants fan. Absolutely nuts for these guys. He meets his favourite quarterback and through a 'misunderstanding' gets beat up. Of course this doesn't go unnoticed, and so we have a situation where he's been assaulted by his idol, and is basically given control over whether he goes to jail or not. The plot is fairly unique I would say, but the best part of the film is the way it all plays out. Oswalt's family is such a group of characters that set up an atmosphere that you can't help but feel for Oswalt and his rebellion against their best wishes. Kevin Corrigan plays his best friend, and together the pair are such a naive match made in heaven that makes it all too plausible. Corrigan really startled me with how different he is from his typical roles, although he looks the exact same and is a familiar poor, oddball type character, yet his nervous demeanour really emphasizes how good these actors are outside of their typical roles. But I would have to say the best part of the film is the air of anxiety that runs through the entire thing, for all sorts of different reasons, that just speaks to how real life can be.

8.5/10

Film#73 - What Just Happened, 2008, dir. Barry Levinson

With such a star-studded cast with the likes of Robert De Niro, Bruce Willis, Catherine Keener and Sean Penn, this film isn't really anything spectacular. It's amusing for sure, but such a surface film that I just can't score it that high despite my deep interest in it's subject matter. De Niro is a movie producer, Willis plays himself (who stubbornly refuses to shave his beard, which is honestly a large plot point) and the entire thing is about getting movies made. This isn;t much on the production side but mostly the business surrounding it, and I loved it. But the film lacked any real depth. The characters were reciting lines and it showed. They didn't transform from the people they are in real life into characters, they were all almost just floating along. No one had any real believable passion. Still, it was pretty good as a look at the Hollywood system and poking at real actors and such.

7.5/10

Film#74 - Shutter Island, 2010, dir. Martin Scorsese

I don't know what to say. I had fairly low expectations, well, I thought it would be good but nothing special. I said it before we stepped into that theatre and this film started playing. This film that just would not let up. It was nonstop beauty in every sense. There are so many layers going on it's unbelievable. The cast is beyond phenomenal. The music was insane. It was all so overwhelming. But to get down to it, the trailer did this film no justice at all. DiCaprio plays with such heart it goes into a realm beyond typical acting and truly into playing another person's life, taking on such individuality that despite his star image you see his character above all else. The aesthetics are just too much. Scorsese plays with colour and symmetry in such a phenomenal way I can't even describe it. It's unlike anything else. DiCaprio goes through these dream-like sequences that have such style I don't know how to describe. The film has this level of paranoia and mystery that never lets up, only getting stronger to a point that speaks so deeply that the real emotions it causes are enough on their own to make this movie transcend into a realm of classic cinema. This is the reason I aspire to make movies.

10/10

Film#75 - Sherlock Holmes, 2009, dir. Guy Ritchie

This was strangely good. I guess it slipped my mind that this is a Guy Ritchie film and he's usually at least pretty good, and this is no exception. I must say Robert Downey Jr and Jude Law work together so well, they have such good chemistry and play the characters to a tee. It has this clever delivery of dialogue and a perfect pacing to make it a really enjoyable experience. In fact I can't find much wrong with this at all. The action sequences are well done and often quirky, just how I like it, and are not drawn out for the sake of violence in film. It really isn't what I thought it would be. The story basically picks up just as Watson and Holmes are no longer working together, playing on the fact that most viewers are already aware of what they generally do. The film pokes fun at all sorts of cultural structures and really doesn't ever give up it's wit and charm.

9/10

66-70

Film#66 - The Imaginarium Of Dr. Parnassus, 2009, dir. Terry Gilliam

I just have to say I'm not particularly fond of Terry Gilliam's movies. I often find them to be too overwhelming stylistically in a way that detracts from the story and characters. This movie was a pleasant surprise as I might even go as far as to say I loved it. It still has that definite Gilliam style of camera work, as well as the gritty-yet-friendly atmosphere and the oddball characters that you'd cross the street if you saw them coming in the real world but in a Gilliam film they're somewhat loveable. What I think distinguishes this from my past experiences with Gilliam is that this film is such a cohesive story that plays out beautifully. The cast is honestly just stellar, couldn't have been better. Heath Ledger died during the filming of this movie, so he was replaced by Johnny Depp, Jude Law and Colin Farrell, and it worked. It worked phenomenally. They all did such a good job it was at times hard to distinguish between the actors. The general idea is a travelling circus sideshow with the likes of Christopher Plummer, Verne Troyer and Lily Cole, stumbles upon Heath hanging under a bridge. They rescue him, and he says he can't remember who he is. As it goes on we get insight not only into the twists and turns of Ledger's character but also the family turmoil between Plummer and Cole. This is all the while Tom Waits (who plays the devil) is on their tails. The Imaginarium is the key attraction to their act; a mirror that you walk into and experience a surreal dream world. Each time LEdger goes into this world, he becomes a different actor. The crazy thing is the first time it happens, when he switches over to being Johnny Depp, I didn't even know until he took off a mask that barely covered half his face. These other actors have taken on the role so well that they now only look remarkably like Ledger but they talk and move like him too. Afterwards I almost felt that Colin Farrell didn't work as well though, since both the actor and the character seemed like more of a douchebag than in the rest of the movie, but it fit. Throughly enjoyable.

9/10

Film#67 - The Lovely Bones, 2009, dir. Peter Jackson

This one has a bit of a heavyweight cast, with the likes of Mark Wahlberg, Stanley Tucci, Rachel Weisz and Susan Sarandon, and it's a real shame the movie had to be so bad in the end. Simply watching the trailer gives you the entire synopsis, as well as the first 5 minutes of the movie. The entire thing is narrated by Suzie Salmon, a 14 year old girl who is killed by her neighbour. I'm not ruining any surprise because she straight out says it to begin the story. We all know who did it, and you can guess he isn't caught by the police. I get the idea that the story is not about the events but rather how they are dealt with by the family. It didn't work. Tucci is decent in it, but I can't help thinking his sinister demeanor is really just because of the unnatural green contacts he's wearing. The story is full of holes, and almost as if in some way to cover them up, little tidbits are thrown in that just end up feeling cheesy. I also had a bit of a problem with how they depicted purgatory, at least what I take to be purgatory. It was honestly a dream come true for this girl, just the absolute happiest place to be. This was the strange part of the film: in the middle of this story of a young girl being murdered (and possibly raped) by a psychotic neighbour, there are these strange happy montages thrown in that seem so out of place and throw off the entire mood the film has been setting. Years down the road from her murder, her mother (Weisz) leaves the family to have some time to herself. The grandmother (Sarandon) comes to hold them together. How does she do that? Oh by having a fun montage of house cleaning and cooking and wacky antics with the kids all the while upbeat 70's music plays. The only thing I actually enjoyed about this movie was the way it played with colour; many aspects of the film play with the familiar navy jacket and orangey pants, giving this wonderful contrasting colour palette. Not only this but certain scenes, such as the walk through the cornfield, have this beautiful shadowy gradient over the section with Stanley Tucci, while in the far distance we can see autumn shades of orange and yellow. However, colour is by no means a redeeming quality, and this film desperately needed some aspect to help it out.

6/10

Film#68 - Nine, 2009, dir. Rob Marshall

I have to say I'm not always sure about how to rate a musical. I've seen many more than I'd like to admit and can't say many musicals have done anything for me. This is where I think this film stood out for me. As opposed to what I may call a typical musical where a scene is set and out of no where music starts and everyone joins in on the song and and dance. It never made sense why those things ever happened. Did the characters then talk about it as if they were singing, or was that just regular for them?

"Oh but didn't you tell me meet you at 5?"

"No I never said that"

"Sure you did, remember, during that spontaneous song with all the kids at school. You remember, I mean we kind of did an organized dance routine together at lunch."

Anyways, this film doesn't do that. Instead, all the music sequences are more or less inside Daniel Day-Lewis' head, as he plays Guido Contini, who is based off of Federico Fellini. The main 'real life' sequence will continue, cut between scenes of Lewis either singing or watching someone perform for him on his unfinished movie set. The general idea is he is looking for his next big movie idea to come to him, particularly from the various women in his life. The problem is he has already signed on to make the movie, and production is well on its way, there just isn't any story or screenplay. So as he goes through his life he finds inspiration, which transform into these musical bits in his head. The way it was done was rather good, and the acting in this film is for the most part phenomenal. Of course I'm a huge Daniel Day-Lewis fan and that man can do no wrong in my eyes, but everyone else was also quite good (minus Nicole Kidman, she was only okay). My problem came from the type of music. There are musicals with catchy songs, 'real' songs, things that can play outside of the context of the film. This one was not really like that. The songs are descriptive of the characters actions, without real choruses or any real hook to them. My next problem was that some sequences seemed unexplained and underdeveloped. I'm aware that this is based off of a play (which is based off of the making of a movie), and that in the production of this film many songs from the play were dropped. I have to believe that all that was absent from this film would have helped bring the story along, and to keep it from being a collection of scenes and instead be more of a solid narrative. We get the just of Day-Lewis' life and struggles, and he gives us a certain level of depth but the narrative is just not there. Nevertheless, this was fairly entertaining despite my hatred of musicals so I have to give it credit.

7.5/10

Film#69 - Boogie Nights, 1997, dir. Paul Thomas Anderson

I love Paul Thomas Anderson's movies, well, at least a good portion of them. I also have a huge interest these days in ensemble casts. I don't even know why but for some reason anything with serious development of more than just a few key characters just sits well with me. I've seen this movie before. Actually I've seen half. When I first saw this several years ago I felt it was kind of slow and lacking real plot points. I've since gained a much deeper appreciation for films and particularly things that are about people rather than things. That's not to say this film isn't full of great plot points, but it's very much about the interactions between the characters. This movie isn't about porn, but rather it uses the porn industry as a backdrop for the characters to be developed in a way that's just so unique it can't be ignored. I find one of my favourite parts about this film is that Anderson casts so many of the same actors in his films, namely John C. Reilly, Phillip Seymour Hoffman, WIlliam H. Macy and Julianne Moore an they play such different parts. Rather than typecasting these actors he throws them into roles that are so radically different from the others that their performances are just that much better. It's a real push to develop each character as a unique identity within the story. Great film.

9.5/10

Film# 70 - Funny People, 2009, dir. Judd Apatow

I sat down to watch this thinking it was a comedy in the vein of a typical Apatow film. This was more or less not the same. It has some seriously funny moments for sure, but within the first 20 minutes a fairly dreary stage is set, and it becomes more of a serious film about comedians than a comedy. Adam Sandler again proves why he should be taken more seriously than just silly comedies, as he brings such depth to this character it feels just so real. This is not to mention his character is oddly fitting with him in a real world sense, as Sandler is playing a veteran comedian who is known for his silly comedy films. He has a form of leukemia and gets a new lease on life as a result. Sounds typical, but where this film branches off is the way he deals with it while under the public eye, while struggling to find happiness and fulfillment, to have true friends, all the while trying to be the 'funny guy' in the room. He befriends Seth Rogen, who is playing a struggling comedian, and they form a fairly convincing friendship. It goes beyond the surface level and at times hints at a truly caring relationship, but this glimpses are often masked by what I can only think are failed jokes. But this may be all part of the plan of the film, so show the struggle for these characters to cover up the problems of life with comedy and obviously not always being successful. In this sense, Funny People is hard to gauge. I can't be sure what is intended to be funny and what isn't, and it confuses the story. It keeps it from being a good comedy or a good drama, and places it somewhere in the middle where it's unsure of itself almost.

7.5/10

61-65

Film#61 - Misery, 1990, dir. Rob Reiner

Well, of course this is another Stephen King that I've gone in with certain expectations. Of course I try to judge this based on it's value as a movie on it's own, not in relation to what I think a King film should be like. This here is quite a good movie. Kathy Bates and James Caan couldn't have been any better and I doubt anyone could have portrayed more captivating characters as they have. The general idea is Caan is a writer who just finished his final novel in a series about a character named Misery. He's on his way home when his car goes off the road, and Bates comes along to drag him to safety. She's a nurse and tends to his mangled legs, and keeps him in her house. Things progress and we find out she's absolutely nuts about him; she's his 'biggest fan' and keeps him locked up in her house. She is utterly insane and he is unable to escape. This is the basic premise and it's executed beautifully. Both characters speak and act in such a way that is perfectly fitting for the style and content of the film. Phenomenal.

9/10

Film#62 - If A Man Answers, 1962, dir. Henry Levin

Basic idea: traditional woman is looking for a husband, finds one, he's flirty with other girls, she pretends to have another lover. That's the movie. Its absolute filled to the brim with these horrible old and out of date traditions for gender roles and it's almost unbearable at times. She honestly lives to serve her husband and finds no greater pleasure than going for the housewife & breadwinner lifestyle. In fact that seems to be the goal of the film; rather than poking at these conformist societal expectations, the film encourages that all things are solved when everyone plays their part the way they should. I could rant but it's not worth the time. The positive part of this film is that it was fairly entertaining for what it was, but nothing special by a long shot.

6.5/10

Film#63 - Raising Arizona, 1987, dir. Joel Coen (& Ethan)

So I tend to really like Coen brothers' movies, and this really let me down. It starts out fantastically, with this strange montage and narration that sets an off-key tone that really got me excited for the rest of the film to play out. However, it just gets out of hand. Silly even. Not only is the narrative silly, but the way it's done is just silly as well. It rivals teenage summer joke movies that are around these days. However it even lacks a real defining element to target that group; it seems to be geared towards a somewhat more adult crowd with the style yet at the same time goes for stupid jokes and over-the-top action and dialogue to be taken seriously, even as a comedy.

5/10

Film#64 - Paranormal Activity, 2007, dir. Oren Peli

I honestly didn't even think I'd ever see this from the promotional material I saw. It seemed like a typical horror movie that I'd pass on. It wasn't until I found out how low budget this was and how it apparently had some edgy style to it that I gave it a try. Unfortunately much of the film was ruined by people who seem to think giving away not only the ending to movies but the entire plot line is okay to do. However, even knowing what would happen, I still found it to be quite enjoyable. It really does have some scary parts, and builds on them as the movie progresses. What I found best about the film was not the horror elements but rather the effect that this 'paranormal activity' had on the couple being filmed. The entire movie is portrayed as found footage of a couple who decide to videotape their lives in hopes of capturing some kind of terrible entity or spirit, if you can call it that. We never really know what it is, which is part of the movie's charm. Some say the characters are 'annoying' and sure, that's true. But I think they are terribly well acted and seem very real. In fact I would go as far as to say that during the majority of the film I felt as if I was actually watching a real life couple deal with real occurrences. He on one hand wants to assert his masculinity and protect his girlfriend; he's cocky and sometimes foolish in how quickly he is to storm out to face whatever is terrorizing them, while on the other hand she is reluctant to do much of anything that could anger it, and rightfully so. Both characters present plausible takes on what goes on, and in that sense it makes it seem believable. I'm sure different viewers will associate with different characters and that is where the film succeeds.

8.5/10

Film#65 - Avatar, 2009, dir. James Cameron

I can't say I was particularly thrilled to see this. Sure, I wanted to and knew I would but I can't say I had high expectations. Of course I knew of all the hype and such. I went in expecting a 'cool' movie that would be visually stunning, a story taken right out of Pocahontas/Fern Gully/Dances With Wolves, and maybe some half decent acting. I got just that. Yes, this movie is beautiful, or as beautiful as artificiality can produce. Yes, the story is nothing groundbreaking. Acting wise, it was mediocre. I have some serious problems with the casting of this film. Sigourney Weaver and Michelle Rodriguez simply don't belong and bring a level of cheesiness that brings the entire film down. Giovanni Ribisi wasn't half bad though, as well as some of the other minor characters. Oh, Joel Moore a.k.a. a terrible actor, yeah, he also didn't belong. Other than it's obvious problems, well, it had some more. The dialogue was often just brutal, especially the failed one-liners Cameron threw in to get some cheap laughs, which honestly made me cringe (think Michelle Rodriguez saying things like "Take that bitch" and you get the general idea). I have trouble seeing this a the best film of the past year when it wasn't nominated for best screenplay or any acting roles. It makes me wonder how something can be the 'best' yet have no noteworthy dialogue, story, or acting. I also wonder what the intent of this film was. So many movies get picked apart as allegorical for this and that, and if so, how can I not take this film as a representation of American attitudes towards invading other people's land, uninvited and through the use of force. The parallels are undeniable in my mind. It so overtly takes a jab at taking resources from other people, which unfortunately is all too familiar. However in this one we see the invaders as the 'bad guys', obviously, and we are meant to feel for the victimized tribal people. And yeah, it works. So this makes me wonder, is this film so popular because it speaks to the people to stop taking and forcing views on others, or is it really just a 'cool' movie with lots of explosions and pretty colours for the kiddies to enjoy?

8.5/10

56-60

Film#56 - The Blind Side, 2009, dir. John Lee Hancock

This was very pleasantly surprising. My preconceptions were this film was about a weary housewife learning to love a underprivileged black teen. To some extent, yes, that does happen. But that's about 10 minutes of a two hour film. Sandra Bullock's character is inspiring to say the least, as well as the rest of her family. She's well acted but I wouldn't say best of the year oscar worthy, but that's just me. Where this movie really stands out is in the way it truly depicts a beautiful world where people can show true compassion beyond this beginning story of overcoming class/race differences, but more so in the way it's about people helping people. It should be obvious both Sandra Bullock and Quinton Aaron get something out of the relationship they never expected, and the beauty comes from their completely uninhibited desire to care for one another.

8/10

Film#57 - Dolores Claiborne, 1995, dir. Taylor Hackford

I have certain expectations with Stephen King movies, but that's mostly because Frank Darabont has set me up this way. This film, in that sense, disappoints a little. It's no Darabont. But it is however a thoroughly enjoyable telling of a fractured yet flowing storyline. Taking place in the gloomy present while interspersed with flashbacks to many years before, this film tells the story of Dolores (Kathy Bates) and her daughter Selena (Jennifer Jason Leigh). Bates has just been accused of a murder, a murder we all know she has committed. Her daughter hasn't spoken to her in years and is called back to a small town she has no desire to live in. Leigh is crafted in her father's image, a hard women, smoking and drinking like it's going out of style, with an unimaginable resentment towards her mother. Dolores is hated by pretty much everyone, and she seems fairly well crazy. However, as the story progresses, we see how the mother-daughter relationship has ended up this way, while at the same time exploring that past brings a new light to their current predicament. Aesthetically beautiful with often mind-blowing instances of editing magic, this film lives up as close as it can to a Darabont telling of King.

8.5/10

Film#58 - Crank 2, 2009, dir. Mark Neveldine & Brian Taylor

I must say I loved the original Crank. I had been told the generic, "It's a non stop thrill ride" but really, Crank redefined that term. It truly is non-stop. This film let me down in that department. The original built it's appeal not only on the crazy storyline, and absolutely neverending action and the undeniable quirky style, while Crank 2 seems a bit more forced based on its predecessors success. Yes, this film is fun and still packed full of the juicy bits that make the series so enjoyable. Statham delivers like no other, bringing action together with a unique sense of character, which is obviously his style of acting all together, but this film makes reference to that in such an obvious way that brings it to a new level. There is even a moment where characters acknowledge the actor's past works, giving the film a self-referential charm. My problem with it was too often and too early on did the film take considerable stops in the flow. Action would practically end for large chunks, which I wouldn't say is a fault of the film, but rather the overall urgency is lost. Of course the plot is absolutely ridiculous, seeing as how Statham's character free-fell several miles to his subsequent death in the first movie, and has miraculously been revived (which is actually explained as best as possible in this film). A funny and thrilling movie.

8/10

Film#59 - Pillow Talk, 1959, dir. Michael Gordon

Here we have a somewhat interesting set up for what will obviously be a love story from the beginning. Rock Hudson and Doris Day share a party line, which for those of you that don't know is way back when people in different houses would share a single phone line and would have to cooperate to use it. Hudson is a song writing, and has what appears to be the absolute most irresistible charm on women. Day and Hudson do not get along, although they have never met. One thing leads to another and they run into each other, where Hudson pretends to be a different person while being fully aware of who Day is. They date, fall in love, etc, and it's all fine and dandy. Of course she finds out who he is, and you can guess where this eventually goes. The film had several odd and strangely out of place mini-plots going on, which I'm sure someone will deconstruct as extremely meaningful, but as part of the film experience they served to purpose and often felt unwelcome. This film had nothing to set it above any other typical romantic comedy of the time and today just falls behind with it's all too predictable plot.

6/10

Film#60 - Vicky Cristina Barcelona, 2008, dir. Woody Allen

I honestly don't know where to start with this film. I find it's just so perfectly crafted in every sense that it's just a perfect piece of cinema (aren't I pretentious). The film explores so many stereotypical elements of life and love but in such a new way that is unfamiliar yet still relatable. Javier Bardem is just such a fantastic character, not just in the sense that yes, he has a particularly strong effect on women and spends his time drinking wine in a beautiful countryside with a stable of beautiful women swooning over him, but also in the way his philosophical attitudes come out literally as poetry. He is such a confident man in the uncertainty of life and his acknowledgement of it makes him content even in times of struggle. While all the characters seem to be searching for something, he is too, but he has come to a place where he is conscious of the search as a neverending process and simply finds the pleasure of searching as fulfilling as the idea of finding what he's looking for. This movie brings a new light to what is meaningful, and challenges societal values and norms beyond a rebellious tone but rather in the sense that alternatives to what is meaningful exist on a personal level and that fully accepting other peoples individual identities is in itself forming a new societal norm. But I can't describe the way this film explores these ideas, since the film experience itself is complete, not that I'm saying that it doesn't inspire further thinking but rather as a single story it finds answers to its own questions that leave the viewer fulfilled. Not to mention this film has one of the most pleasing colour palettes I've seen in a long time.

10/10

51-55

Film#51 - Fargo, 1996, dir. Joel Coen (& Ethan)

This is such a definitive film for the Coen brothers. I think it may be my favourite of theirs. The entire tone of the film is just indescribable, an air of something. Steve Buscemi doesn't have leading roles like this enough, he is just fantastic, especially in this film right here. I don't even know what else to say about this.

10/10

Film#52 - A Serious Man, 2009, dir. Joel & Ethan Coen

A relatively unknown film of theirs, with what some may call an abysmal revenue in today's Hollywood market, this film is just another reason why the Coen brothers are so good. Here we have a story of Larry Gopnik and his intensely Jewish life. It's not about Judaism but rather that is the way the story is told. The characters have the familiar Coen tone to them, almost as if several characters are zoned out slightly, oblivious. The film is really about perspective in my opinion, and as I was thinking this a certain rabbi happened to end up saying it. This film is in the vein of Barton Fink for the Coens, with many interpretive aspects left unanswered, but I feel where Barton left me wondering cluelessly, this film had a more cohesive after-feeling. The dialogue is extraordinary and full of strange tales and twists. It truly left me with some deep thinking to do and an overall feeling of happiness, making it a perfect experience.

10/10

Film#53 - The Messenger, 2009, dir. Oren Moverman

I can't even begin to describe how culturally significant I feel a film like this is. Along with something like The Hurt Locker, I really find film is such a powerful statement for the voice of the people, as cliche and pretentious that sounds. But honestly, these films present aspects of war that are rarely touched upon or even though of, and show how horrific the effects of war are beyond the battlefield. I could say something like "in these hard times..." but people have been saying that forever. It's always 'hard times' somewhere. These films show the brutality of war as I've said, which I find strange for America, especially American films, since it's fairly contradictory to the whole "support the troops" mentality. Anyways, this film is about, as the title suggests, a messenger. Woody Harrelson plays a well-practiced army man whose job is to notify next-of-kin that their son/daughter/whatever has died in the war. The scenes where these messages are delivered are really something, as nearly all of them are single shot sequences, with such an array of emotional responses. Small cameo from Steve Buscemi as a father of soldier who has just died (they specifically refrain from saying passed on or anything kind of euphemism). Ben Foster leads the film as a war veteran given this duty as the last of his required time with the army. Both Woody and Ben give spectacular performances, building a strange bond between them as they go on. Not only dealing with the memories and experiences of war times but also the problems facing everyone else in the world: fitting in, forming relationships, surviving. Phenomenal.

9.5/10

Film#54 - Julie & Julia, 2009, dir. Nora Ephron

From the director/writer/producer of You've Got Mail, here we have a beautiful story taking place simultaneously in the 50's with Julia Child, as well as in 2002 with Julie Powell. I'm sure the idea of the film is obvious. I must say, this was thoroughly enjoyable. It was refreshing from the types of films I've been watching lately, as going in I just knew there was no reason to worry. There would be no twist where someone dies, no murder, no rape, nothing to be on edge about. It's not about the struggle of life but rather finding enjoyment. Enjoyment really seems to be the word to go along with this film; an enjoyable viewing experience about people seeking enjoyment in every sense. Obviously I drew connections with Julie Powell's blog and my own, so maybe it home just a bit more for me than the average person.

9/10

Film#55 - Fantastic Mr.Fox, 2009, dir. Wes Anderson

I like Wes Anderson. I've seen a handful of his stuff and it was all quite good. Syle-wise, tone-wise, content-wise, it's all been very good. This one however just didn't cut it for me. Not that I was comparing it to the standard set before it, but just as a movie it bored me. The charm of the animation style was lost almost instantly; simply seeing the trailer was enough to get the just of it. Yes, it's well done, meticulous. The style, just lovely. Colours, fantastic. The story, voice-acting, dialogue: not so much. I'm not sure who the demographic is for this film. Much of the content is childish, far more so than I expected. But then we have the constant use of the word 'cuss' as a replacement for 'fuck', so obviously and used so often it can't be mistaken for anything else. The joke is less than witty to begin with, but by the twentieth time it's used, I'm just squirming for something new to come along. I'm also unsure if this was meant to be a comedy, in the laugh out loud sense. I don't think I even smiled once. There are comedies that don't go for laughter, banking on cleverness and delivery to carry the comedic tone. This on the other hand was what I would almost call an embarrassment. I could only understand that yes, that may have been something some people may consider funny, but no, I wouldn't. I wouldn't even be able to pick out someone who would. It would have been interesting to see this in theatres, just to gauge the audience's reactions. It could have been a great short film. Instead, coming in at under an hour and a half, it felt long. Drawn out. In terms of what makes a good movie, to me, it lacked a lot. The character development was there, the only problem was it felt so forced and unreal. A silly movie.

6/10

46-50

Film#46 - Layer Cake, 2004, dir. Matt Vaughn

I had heard of this movie for years, never having any interest. Even though I think Daniel Craig was phenomenal in Casino Royale, I still didn't get around to this until now. And I'm glad I did. It had this tremendous flow to it, twisting through the plot rapidly but still keeping you in the loop. It really seem like a precursor to Daniel Craig as James Bond, after all he is going around uncovering a mystery with a 9mm as he does it. However, this film is vastly different, both in content as well as Craig's overall style. He's not the suave Bond character, although it could have easily been played that way. He shows depth, and it works. Also, it had some phenomenally cinematic sequences and edits that left me speechless. A great film.

8.5/10

Film#47 - The Man In The Gray Flannel Suit, 1956, dir. Nunnaly Johnson

After weeks of hype from a certain professor, and reading countless bits about the mythical 'man in the gray flannel suit', I finally see it. Right off the bat, this film is undeniably a massive influence on Madmen. Lead Tom Rath, played by Gregory Peck, is Don Draper. Both are advertising men, both have trouble at home. Both went to war, coming back scarred but trying to hide it, especially from their wives. Both have been unfaithful. It's the same story, just different. Now, this film is over two and a half hours, which by my standards is not a problem at all. Actually, quite the opposite, as most of my favourite films are quite lengthy. However, this one drags out. It feels like a season of Madmen rolled up, and I just couldn't take it. It was boring. The content was okay, sure the style was fair, but it just had an 'essence of bore.' Over acted at times, with some especially ridiculous lines, namely when Tom and wife are in bed, and she asks permission to speak, to which he says "Don't worry, I won't hit you" just SO calmly as if that was expected. It might have been a great film back in its time, and it surely had a deep influence on modern media, but it just doesn't hold up.

6.5/10

Film# 48 - Invictus, 2009, dir. Clint Eastwood

This was an interesting experience. I wasn't very enthusiastic about it, and it proved to be fairly what I thought it might. It didn't wow me. Morgan Freeman, well, where was he in the film? I didn't see him, because looking at the man on screen, you see Nelson Mandela. Despite his phenomenal acting (possibly just that he already resembles Mandela to begin with), I found it hard to stomach the way he spoke. Literally everything that man says is a motivation speech. He can't talk normally; people do not speak like this. Matt Damon on the other hand, he was good, but surely not best actor nominee good. A lot about rugby, with much of the emotional element feeling forced rather than simply flowing. Still, an enjoyable film that has it's own merit.

8/10

Film#49 - The Hurt Locker, 2009, dir. Kathryn Bigelow

I do believe this should be the best picture of the year. I have a feeling it may not be, simply because of Avatar's 'technological achievements' and awe-inspiring mass-appeal, as well as the simple fact that more people have money invested in it winning than anything else. Anyways, this film, was unbelievable. It has such depth and development, such style and enthralling narrative; it's undeniable. Do not expect this to be a kickass movie with explosions and tough guys running around shooting (although these things do happen), but rather this is a film of the role people play in the big picture, as well as the small. It's about finding one's own place, something they can believe in and something for self fulfillment. Jeremy Renner gives such a good performance, giving the character such life. The movie has this set of radically different men all seemingly looking for the same thing, speaking to the nature of humanity. I could go on and on in this pretentious rant but I'd rather encourage you to just see this.

10/10

Film#50 - Precious, 2009, dir. Lee Daniels

I was shocked quite quickly at how 'quirky' this film is, by my standards. For anyone who has seen it, the strange dream-like sequences and the way they flow in and out of reality is something I would consider a quirk. However, this quirks are, different. This movie, although it's undeniably hard-hitting and at least trying to appeal emotionally, oftentimes removed me too much from the drama. I was getting to know the characters just as things got better; their lives generally improve throughout the film, and by the time i was invested in Precious, she was already doing so well. The climax, if you can call it that, was incredible. My problem was that it didn't seem as if life was hanging in the balance; by the time this moment came, the major problems of the film had been resolved, at least in my opinion. Still, a great movie.

8.5/10

42-45

Film#42 - Magnolia, 1999, dir. Paul Thomas Anderson

For a movie with a 3 hour running time, I was left wanting more. I had seen this film before and didn't think anything special of it, but that was literally a decade ago. Now this is at the top of my list. Magnolia is such a perfect web of stories it's unbelievable. Each character is so unique and well done, while at the same time drawing on each others troubles as their own. It has so many quirky edits and little tidbits I just can't help but love it even more. Truly a movie that leaves you with an indescribable feeling.

10/10

Film#43 - Punch-Drunk Love, 2002, dir. Paul Thomas Anderson

Of the four (of five total) Anderson films I've seen, this has to be the strangest. I vaguely remember my mother going to see it years back and saying it was okay (which may or may not have actually happened, I'm not sure) which really shocks me. This doesn't seem like anything typical put out today. It seemed to be advertised as much more mainstream than it really is. The plot alone is bizarre enough: Adam Sandler runs a novelty toiletry business, where he finds a sort of mini piano in the street, has 7 sisters who call him Gayboy (despite not being gay), is intensely disturbed emotionally (fits of tears or violence are common) all the while trying to start a relationship with Emily Watson, not to mention he's buying out all the chocolate pudding to get frequent flyer miles. Oh, did I forget that the majority of the film is about a phone sexworker extorting him for money? Yeah. This movie is bizarre, but I liked it. It had this almost constant soundtrack reminiscent of the fantasy sequences in American Beauty, which were sometimes a bit too much. Adam Sandler however, blew me away. I wasn't sure when exactly he was trying to be funny because honestly I don't think he even tried in this. It was all so natural yet so unlike his usual stuff, it really has moved him up in my mind as a serious actor. Overall it was an enjoyable cinematic experience.

8/10

Film#44 - Shaun Of The Dead, 2002, dir. Edgar Wright

I've seen Hot Fuzz many times and as explained in my review, I love it. I had actually never seen all of Shaun Of The Dead and I'm not sure why. Something about a preconception it would be a rather stupid comedy. Instead it's actually very funny. Intensely self-referential and constantly poking jabs at pop culture, it was just fantastic. There wasn't a cheesy line that wasn't recognized as being cheesy for cheesy's sake (if that makes sense). It was actually a rather refreshing film, taking a more serious genre (at least that's how the genre likes to present itself) and putting a comedic spin on it, together with a fantastic cast and a compelling storyline. If anything was lacking however, was I would have liked to have seen a deeper bond between Shaun (Simon Pegg) and best friend Ed (Nick Frost), who also played best friends in Hot Fuzz. My problem here is I feel their bond could have been better developed to get the movie more of a punch and emotional impact. Other than that, it was incredibly witty.

9.5/10

Film#45 - What Ever Happened To Baby Jane?, 1962, dir. Robert Aldrich

This was such a frustrating experience I don't even know where to start ranting. Although I actually really liked the movie, it was sometimes unbearable. The general plot is back in 1917, Blanche and Jane Hudson, two young sisters, are in show business. Jane is the cute one, singing and dancing, but also stuck up. Years later, Jane is a washed up actress while Blanche is widely respected and loved. The problem is the studio has them signed so that for everyone Blanche film, Jane gets to do one too. The film shifts to years later, when sweetie Blanche is in a wheelchair (presumably because her sister put her there) and Jane is horribly bitter. They live together, where Blanche is unable to even go down stairs. Long story short, Jane (Bette Davis) is absolutely nuts, making life a complete nightmare for Blanche while she goes mad with delusions of getting back into the spotlight. The problem comes with Blanche's complete helplessness, which I wouldn't blame on her inability to move but rather, well I just don't know. This is where the frustrations comes in. Blanche tries to get help, as she's now basically a prisoner of her sister, so what does she do? She writes a note asking for help, and throws it out the window to the next door neighbour. Good idea, except it would have been MUCH easier to just yell down, rather than staying silent. Her second problem here is she happens to throw the note onto her own driveway, just as her sister comes home. Of course this only makes things worse. Another moment is where, for whatever reason, she's freaking out that her sister is keeping her captive, so he literally just turns her chair in circles over and over saying "no, no, no". Lastly, probably the most frustrating moment is where she manages to get to the phone, after struggling down the stairs and practically killing herself, she calls her doctor. Not he police, her doctor. Does she tell him she's being starved to death and held captive? No. She mumbles around for 5 minutes and then surprise surprise Jane catches her and the doctor never comes. She almost deserves to be treated like this. The movie does not shine a good light on women in general, as they are all either horrible people, completely helpless, or consumed with gossip. However, it was still amusing to watch, often beautifully shot, and told an actually very engaging story. I just hated the characters.

7/10