2009 Movies: The Best, Worst and Otherwise of the Year
by John NolteTop 10 Favorites of 2009: I know of no objective way to judge a film. So these are simply the ten I enjoyed and/or admired most this year that moved me in the exact way the filmmaker intended. Some of those listed here might officially be considered 2008 releases, so consider this a list of favorite films reviewed since BH’s launch [links go to my original review]:
1. Up
2. Gran Torino
3. Crazy Heart
4. The Road
5. Che
6. Tie – Watchmen / Taken
7. 500 Days of Summer
8. The Hangover
9. Stoning of Soraya M.
10. Inglourious Basterds
—–
Worst 10 Films of 2009: Pure punishment.
1. Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen
2. Transformers : Revenge of the Fallen
3. Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen
4. Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen
5. Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen
6. G.I. Joe: The Rise In My Stomach
7. Harry Potter and the Dullest Entry In The Dullest Franchise Ever
8. I Love You, Beth Cooper
9. Ghosts of Girlfriends Past
10. Year One
—–
Top 5 Pleasant Surprises of 2009: Who knew they would be so much fun?
1. Funny People
2. Tie – Wolverine/ The Final Destination
3. Moon
4. The Proposal
5. Tie – 17 Again/Fast and Furious
—–
Top 10 Overrated by Critics and/or Audiences in 2009: What am I missing here…?
1. Avatar
2. Star Trek
3. The Hurt Locker
4. Precious: Based on A Novel By Someone Who Really Hates Precious
5. District 9
—–
Top 5 Disappointments of 2009: Damn you Hollywood.
1. Terminator: Salvation
2. Public Enemies
3. The Taking of Pelham 1,2,3
4. Tie – Drag Me to Hell / Extract
5. Bruno
And here are my Top 15 Films of the Decade.
Email this to a friend | Print |
Share on Facebook
| Tweet this
| 
Follow Us on Twitter
Subscribe via RSS
Got a Tip?
116 Comments
I totally forgot how much you liked Watchmen. That seemed to be a real "love it or hate it" film.
Star Trek was a lot of fun (and technically brilliant), and I say that as a full-fledged Trekkie. I do think it was missing that extra little something: that intellectual/moral/ethical subtext that the best Trek films and episodes had. I think all this talk of "Star Trek for Best Picture!" is a bit ridiculous. The closest any Trek film could've come to the major categories was Star Trek II's screenplay, which of course was ignored. The new film is certainly smarter than most sumer blockbusters and it deserves credit for that.
The new Pelham 123 never had a chance!
John, tell us how you really feel about "Transformers: Revenge of The Fallen". You're just not being clear on that one.
By the way, "Up" truly is an amazing film. When will Pixar stumble? They can't keep this run of excellence up forever.
I am in agreement with most of your Top Ten. But "Che"? And putting "Harry Potter" in the worst category, I suppose I could understand if you don't have children or haven't read the series of books. My kids have grown up with HP ~they're now 20 & 18~ and this movie is but one chapter in the saga that is really leading to an amazing conclusion. Plus, though there are scary monsters, it's wholesome enough for my 11-year-old to see.
Otherwise, I concur.
I must agree on UP. It is a most perfectly perfect story, told with joy and heart. The top 10 list it belongs on includes Casablanca.
Watched "HP" yesterday on demand. Aren't there any lights in Hogwarts? Agree- no energy, very lackluster, badly paced.
Back to TCM…
Since you brought it up…
I got the Star Trek DVD a couple of weeks ago. Now, before I tell you what I think, here are my bona fides: I'm 52 years old and watched every episode of the original series when it aired as a pre-teen. It is still my favorite TV series of all time. I had Leonard Nimoy's Mr. Spock's Music from Outer Space album, and, horrible as it was, I loved it. When in high school – before I could drive – me and two friends would run home after school to see the reruns of it because the bus would make us miss the first five minutes. Those two friends were killed in a tragic and senseless accident, so I actually cried when watching Star Trek: The Motion Picture in the theater when it came out.
I've seen all the movies at least once, and some are terrible clunkers, but Wrath of Kahn is truly brilliant, IMO. I've seen every episode of every spinoff too, and of those, I actually liked Enterprise the best, but TNG had it's moments too, and even a few episodes of DS9 and Voyager were good, in my estimation.
So, I'm a MAJOR Trekkie!
I simply LOVE this reboot. I think it's the best reboot of any franchise ever. My DVD playcount tells me I've watched it almost ten times already, and only the Lord of the Rings Extended DVD's have higher play counts. I seriously, can't wait for the next one.
Simon Pegg is simply awe inspiring and hilarious as Scotty. Best of the cast. It took me a while to warm up to Quinto, because I so wanted Adrien Brody to get that part, but even he has won me over. Karl Urban's Bones is pretty good, but there were a few flat spots in his role, but Chris Pine must have studied Shatner epically, because he has the speech patterns down pat. He even has the swagger!
So, that's my #1 most pleasant surprise of 2009.
I have to disagree about Star Trek being overrated. I thought it was a lot of fun, and this is coming from a guy who hated the thought of a Trek reboot.
"Land of the Lost" deserves several worst catagories. I know you think it was so bad, you just blocked it from your mind. I wish I could.
Star Trek was great fun, and unlike Sherlock Holmes, a great update for a new audience. Sorry to see no mention of "Me and Orson Welles."
Gran Torino is on my list too, but #1 for me was Moon.
Public Enemies was a disappointment for me as well. To sterile. Didn't care about any of the characters.
I liked Drag Me To Hell, but I admit that I probably wouldn't have liked it so much if I wasn't a big Evil Dead fan. I really liked Star Trek, too.
See I didn't miss anything again this year….
TCM for me
Wolverine sucked. They could have at least made an effort to make it enjoyable for people who know Wolverine from the comic books. And I can't forgive them for botching Gambit, my favorite X-Man(Tied with Wolvie). Unforgivable.
Actually Gran Torino was a 2008 film.
HP in the punishment category Che and The Road in the good column, you have a lot of leather and whips in your toy box right?
ST was great to people who did not live eat and breath ST, even some of us lesser fans enjoyed it because it felt more like the original show which was more cutting edge and fun then the later PC crap the later shows became.
Here's what Nolte said about Raging Bull: "A character study should study a character worthy of your time." Then he loves "Che". Hmmmm.
Sadly the "best' list is only slightly better than the "worst" list. I finally got around to watching "The Hangover" over the holidays after hearing raves about how funny it was. I didn't find it funny, and not because I don't like movies like that, I do. "Beerfest" is one that comes to mind that I love. I lost interest and fell asleep. "Gran Torino" was good as compared to Clint's other recent movies, yet still flawed. I find myself going to movies less and less, which is sad because I love good films.
Give me more stuff like Mamet, Whit Stillman and other films with good dialog, good stories and compelling characters and I might be interested. I am sick to death of films like Avatar and Transformers, the effects were cool when I saw them 10 years ago but that entire genre is stale now.
Funny, I neither loved nor hated Watchmen. It is a harebrained and completely irrelevant story (yes, I read the book a long time ago) but on its own terms quite amusing and the movie is brilliantly done.
Did you see Walle? That was an amazing disappointment.
I'm glad to see my brother and I aren't the only ones who hated Star Trek. It's just a poorly made film with embarrassing performances. I just don't see what people love about this movie. I'm also glad to see Harry Potter on the list. I just watched the DVD last week and I think it's the weakest installment of the series so far. It's not that bad, but they easily could have edited out 20 minutes of the characters calmly staring at each other. The movie had an odd detached feeling and was too slow.
I loved The Hangover. What I loved best about it was that it wasn't just some simple gross-out comedy with lead characters who were total jerks. I believed these guys cared about their missing friend and would do whatever it took to get him back. Compare it with Superbad (which i also liked) where the two main characters have a heart to heart talk at the end of the movie which comes off as tacked-on and fake.
I thought Moon was garbage.
It was a movie with exactly two points to make. It spent the entire movie making the first point (Corporations are evil). It made its second point in the last three seconds of the film (Talk radio hosts are evil and RAAAACIST!).
The worst thing about Hollywood in 2009 is the distribution system which says that since I have made the logistically, financially, and morally sensible decision to live far away from any major metropolitan center, I must wait until sometime in 2010 — or the blu-ray — to see THE ROAD.
Of course, the same distribution system also kept AFTER LAST SEASON from showing anywhere near me. I don't know whether to be disappointed or relieved.
Also: loved the new HP when I first saw it in the theater, but it truly does drrraaaaaagggg now that I've seen it.
And DISTRICT 9 is brilliant. And ZOMBIELAND is right up there with UP as my favorites of the year.
That's unusual, because most of the hard-core Trekkies that I know HATE the reboot. They spent all of their teen and adult years memorizing every single aspect and nuance of the "Star Trek Universe", then J.J. Abrams comes along and tosses all that in the crapper in the first 15 minutes. That's one of the reasons I enjoyed the film – the story is no longer constrained by all that Star Trek lore. Abrams can take it pretty much wherever he wants now. So he essentially brought back the sense of "adventure" that made the original series so popular.
John, there's a phenomenon known as "ludic reading", ie "reading purely for pleasure." There's decent neurophysiology to suggest that this is a very specific mental state; and one of the ways to prevent a reader from entering that state is to tell readers they will be quizzed on a particular topic once they're done.
There's also a well-known psychological phenomenon in which focusing on certain things blanks out perceptions of other things: what you think shapes what you perceive. (I wrote about this at Pajamas Media a while ago.)
You went in, perfectly reasonably, expecting to see and planning to review a movie that was a conventional Hollywood lefty movie. As a result, in your review of Avatar, you missed the straight out statement at the beginning that the security people weren't Marines but paid security — mercenaries, in effect — and that the whole thing was a commercial operation, not governmental. As a result, what you missed was the movie the rest of us saw: Dances with Wolves in blueface, admittedly, but technically spectacular and emotionally involving.
Tell you what: go see the movie again, IMAX 3D; remind yourself that the RDA is basically Google and tell yourself the soldiers are the French Foreign Legion. See what that movie is like.
I gave you a minus 1 but I meant to give you a plus 1 instead. Sorry!
I liked Public Enemies. Depp put in a great performance, but there was no real surprise how this story would end, and Mann's poetic license at times (walking through a police station without being recognized) was a bit much.
Watched it the other day. What a waste of money.
Okay, so the bad guys in Avatar are Blackwater instead of the USMC. The difference doesn't really seem to affect the 'point' James Cameron is after.
Up: Sad. The most interesting character in the whole film grew old and died early. Yuck.
500: Couldn't finish it
Taken: Watched it twice so far
Watchmen: Good
Inglourious: Sucked
Gran Torino: Very good
Hangover: Not bad
GI Joe: Liked it. Not loved it. Chase in Paris worth price of admission.
Start Trek: Just ok.
John,
You are absolutely right about the new Star Trek movie. It could have been wonderful and it came so close in places, but the things that were so right about this film couldn't overcome the things that were so wrong. Spock abandons his post in the midst of battle to save his family? And without consequences? Will someone in the Star Trek franchise please read a single naval history? Just one?
And then, instead of stepping in to take over, when Spock deserts his post, Kirk merely hangs out in the transporter room to see what happens with Spock? Did anyone even watch the original series?
I would accuse Star Trek of being horribly anti-military, but I suspect it's just incompetence at work.
Flawed beyond hope of recovery.
[...] more from the original source: 2009 Movies: The Best, Worst and Otherwise of the Year This entry is filed under America – Blogs, Big Hollywood. You can follow any responses to this [...]
I did not, but I've heard it's got a preachy enviro-theme.
John,
We'll have to take your word on Che, though we'll know better once we hear what the other 17 people who saw it (outside of Cuban political prisoners who were forced to screen it as a form of torture) thought of it.
Happy New Year!
Yeah, that was a pure crap-fest for the five minutes I could bear to watch it.
The jury is still out on Wall-E and on Nolte's last sight, it inspired a very long discussion. Is it eco-propaganda or a Biblical tale? Someone said it's anti-corporate, yet another person said that the scene when the ship captain realizes he can grow his own food on his own farm was the most conservative moment in film in years.
It's worth watching, if only to see what the fuss is all about.
Though I consider myself something of a Trekkie, I'm not so hard core as to demand everything be 100% canon. I didn't enjoy Star Trek because I found the story to be stupid. A prime example being Spock deciding to maroon Kirk instead of throwing him in the brig. On a planet he's not equipped to survive on on his own. Without contacting the local Federation outpost to tell them he's sending them a criminal who'll need to be picked up before he dies from exposure and is eaten by the local wildlife. (And given that the planet is in Vulcan's back yard it's not like Spock can plead ignorance to it's weather conditions or local wildlife.) Of course the Federation outpost is completely oblivious to Vulcan's destruction and the sudden appearance of a black hole in it's back yard despite being so close to Vulcan it seems more like a moon than another planet. And on and on and on.
My two cents….and ….My top five of those I seen were in order of preference: Inglourious Basterds best of the year. Star Trek, State of Play, 500 days of Summer, Avatar. Haven't seen.. Up in the Air, Invictus, or Precious amongst others. Worst of the year…Year one, Transformers Revenge, Bruno, District 9. Honorable mentions, Up, Adventureland, Public Enemies, Watchmen are some I really liked a lot.
"Transformers" is Twilight for dudes. Thbbbbtt!
Gran Torino was EXCELLENT whichever year it was. I was prepared not to like it, but liked it very, very much.
500 Days of Summer stole a lot of style from French films, but was good nevertheless. I particularly liked that it didn't have a "Republican moment." I see very few movies these days because of that. Lately the worst was Julie and Julia. The Republican moment was "If I was a Republican I would have fired you."
As Spock would say, "Precisely." In another favorable review I read of it by a Trek fan about my age, he said something like the Trek universe was weighed down by its own cultural and historical baggage. That's exactly how I felt about it. If Abrams avoids re-burdening the series with lefty claptrap, I think it has awesome potential.
Jake Sully was wearing a USMC logo on his shirt. Now if it had been his honor as a former marine that caused him to side with the natives against RDA, I might stomach it. But since it was just that he was a poor, lost lonely soul and almost every other Marine/Mercenary had an American accent, I'm going to assume these were former USMC, and thus a slap in the face of the USMC.
Cameron should have slipped in some dialogue to the effect that these "marines" were all just out of Leavenworth with dishonorable discharges when RDA picked them up. That would have negated the visceral reaction I had to the Marines being the bad guys.
Watchmen good? Harry Potter bad? I have to disagree with those ones.
Furthermore Blackwater is not the criminal gang the left makes them out to be. So Cameron making it them is in fact no better than his making them USMC.
Entrepreneurs getting paid to do the dirty work may not be saints, but they aren't necessarily devils either.
The Hangover had one of the main characters committing sexual abuse on a baby — teaching him to masturbate himself. This happens more than once in the film. I didn't think that was funny. That character identified himself as a convicted pedophile earlier in the film when he said he couldn't be seen within a certain distance of the school. So, I think we should boycott this film for normalizing pedophilia as just a humorous peculiarity.
I just found your review of The Hangover. As you put it:
Galifianakis practically steals the show as a bighearted, not too terribly bright oddball who refuses to cuss but is more than willing to have some twisted fun with a baby.
Twisted fun???? It is illegal. It is sexual abuse.
I agree with most of the selections here, including Harry Potter, just had no energy and was somewhat confusing. I think I'd reverse Terminator 3 (better than I thought it would be, although that still leaves it in the average category), and Wolverine, which falls into the disappointing category, seemed to be going through the motions. It really pains me to have to agree on Public Enemies, Mann fan that I am. One movie that I think deserves to be on the Top 10 list and is missing is An Education, one of the top couple of movies I saw this year, go see it while it is still in theaters.
You're dead on about Gran Torino. I just saw it for the first time and it's the best drama I've seen in years. You're still delusional about Star Trek and District 9 (both movies were great), but I've read all your comments about them and you just can't see what most of us did. C'est la vie.
It's not like the original was a model of military accuracy. The captain risking himself by going down to the surface every week? Preposterous.
Spock left his post not only to save his family, but the Vulcan council. He was justified in that.
The mechanism by which Kirk became captain was laughable, though.
"Up" stunk.
I was ssooo looking forward to it, but was HUGELY disappointed. What started off as a great fairy tale-esque story- a man lives his life, loses the woman he loves in old age, and escapes a bleak reality by floating his house away- degraded into a ridiculous story involving talking dogs, maniacal aged explorer, and a big dumb bird.
What?! If Studio Ghibli had been given that opening they would have brought us to a magical world. Pixar brought us crap.
This movie was stupid.
First off, the Star Trek lore is big enough to choose any corner at random and play with it WITHOUT deconstructing everything Roddenberry built.
Second, there was LOTS for me to gripe about in this crap, but the one thing stands out the most: Spock loses everything he knew- his home, his relatives, his friends- everything is gone when his home planet is destroyed, so what does his "girlfriend, Ohura, do to comfort him? Make out in the elevator.
Yeah. Realistic. I know if I lost everyone and everything I held dear the first thing I would want to do is deep kiss my wife.
This movie was shame. It was like mixing Star Trek with Gossip Girl, or some other pathetic show where everyone is a model, and has trouble keeping their pants on.
The spaceship scene was a clearly pro-conservative/anti-socialist moment.
Unfortunately, too many conservatives missed this clever plot twist because Wall-E was labeled by liberal critics as an "environmental message" film. Thus, these conservatives unfairly lambasted a film that slyly reaffirms right-wing values.
So, I guess you hated:
*The Incredibles because it had superheroes.
*Ratatouille, A Bug's Life, and Finding Nemo because it had talking animals.
*Toy Story because it had talking toys.
*Cars because it had talking cars.
Just pointing out that Pixar has a LONG history of mixing fantastic and dramatic elements in its films. It's this mix that enables Pixar to appeal to a broad audience.
Pixar will not 'stumble' unless they completely abandon either their business plan or their structure.
They share more with a small business mindset than a Hollywood studio.
Yeah, Public Enemies was clearly too clinical of a storytelling.
Hmm… hit a nerve, didn't I?
Following your logic I should have hated "Up" because it had a floating house that went "up", shouldn't I?
But, if you re-read my critique I mentioned no such thing. In fact, I DID say that I LIKED that part, didn't I?
Try not to take these things so personally. You'll live longer.
Great point, Fred. Unfortunately, some of my fellow conservatives here do that with many films.
Wall-E is a great example of this. I actually thought it had an Ayn Rand "Anthem" kind of vibe to it.
I guess a movie that would require one to read would be considered horrible.
I agree! Best movie I saw this Christmas season, and one of my top movies of the year. And to think Orson was only in his early 20's…
Hah! I don't even LIKE Gambit and I thought they screwed him!
Nah, Watchmen was really vile unwatchable dreck, the Blind Side on the other hand is a pretty inspirational story, and Transformers has it's faults, but it's the only film with a really unabashed pro military message
Talking animals aren't fairy tale-esque? What fairy tales did you grow up reading??
Forget the vomitous politics — what about the sh*teous dialog? I gagged audibly at the "Shock and awe" line, and died a little inside with every hack attempt to be macho. Do these peopel know ANYBODY in the military?!? This movie could have been about all the groovy Roger Dean "Yes" album planet scenes and the romance between Sully and the Na'vi princess, but instead of a mind-blowing tour of this gorgeous planet it had to be a stultifyingly inept "message" film. Blecch and Feh!
Oh, and the special effects were NOT leagues ahead of anything I've seen.
I was at one of the first Star Trek conventions in New York City in 1975 and went to them for years as a kid. While I've watched most of the later shows and movies, I'm primarily a fan of the original series. While the movie wasn't flawless and it was different than the original, I liked it and where they went with it. My biggest complaints were how Kirk handled the Kobayashi Maru, the brewery scenery used for the ship interior, and a bit resolved by a deleted scene on the DVD (the car stealing sequence at the beginning) and, yes, to some degree, it makes me think of the parody on Stargate SG-1's 200th episode about what that show might look like with a younger trendy cast. But they got a whole lot right with it. A big plus for me was that they went back to classic-style uniforms that included not only skirts but the different insignia for different job functions. There was a quite a bit of respect paid to the original series, which is what I really cared about. Let's just say that I think of myself as a "Trekkie" rather than a "Trekker".
Land of the Lost — Where a bunch of morons in Hollywood turn a beloved children's television show with something for boys (dinosaurs) and girls (a strong girl lead) and cool but child-suitable monsters (Sleestak) into a raunchy PG-13 comedy inappropriate for children that loses money. I would never give the person responsible for that decision a dime of my money to invest.
He can always fall back on that line about the "hobgoblin of little minds," because, ya know, inconsistency is the hallmark of a great mind.
I know…a giant, swollen ego that sadly his body would eventually grow to match. But the film xorrectly conveyed that although he may have been quite the cad, he was brilliant.
What I think is missing from a lot of modern movies is that while Gene Roddenberry and many of the other writers during the time of the original Star Trek served in the military or knew people who did, a lot of the current writers in Hollywood never served in the military and may not know anyone who has, thus their view of the military has been shaped by watching other fiction and they don't really get it. That said, I agree with the other reply that the original series was never really a model of military accuracy, either, and I didn't think it was that nonsensical in the context of the movie, which had much of the crew as cadets (also a theme seen in earlier Star Trek movies) or people who never had a command rather than the seasoned crew seen in the original series. This Spock is closer to the Spock seen in The Cage/The Menagerie or Where No Man Has Gone Before rather than the seasoned Spock of the later show.
Are you talking about the subtitles or history when you say "read". That movie was terrible because it lacked character development and plot. The best part of the story was the french girl arc and that was not shown enough in the climax. Overall, though, it was just boring.
*Spoiler*
Was I the only one that didn't care when most of the Basterds died throughout the film because I found them interchangeable? This film tried to have funny moments (the Basterds trying Italian) that were few and far between. For an action film it had no action. And for a history film it lacked historical accuracy (I don't care it was on purpose, killing Hitler made me laugh). You could have a movie that kills Hitler for 2 hours and people would smile but it would still be a bad film.
Michael Mann must be heading into some sort of Brechtian phase, seeing how far he can alienate audiences from his characters. I liked Miami Vice as an unsentimental, documentary-style police procedural, and I liked Public Enemies, but I was aware the whole time that it was a film that was designed not to engage an audience in the tried-and-true methods of character development and three-act conflict. That style of just following his characters and seeing where they end up can be off-putting, or confusing and boring at times, but I have to respect him for committing to that kind of artistic vision.
Although, he did compromise with Dillinger's death scene; for a movie so clearly detached from Hollywood conventions, the slow-motion, silent shot with dopey CGI blood was an extreme disappointment.
I kinda liked wolverine, however I agree about the role of Gambit…that was a let down…then again they made Rouge a complete waste of time in the other X-men movies, so I guess it is to be expected.
And put INGLOURIOUS BASTERDS on the "wtf is everybody else smoking?" list. That movie is horrible.
Being a huge fan of the original series as a kid as well as having a complete disdain for everything Will Ferrell is in that doesn't have the words 'Ricky Bobby' in the title, I wouldn't be caught dead watching that travesty.
I got the Star Trek movie on DVD for a Christmas present and watched it December 30th. I hadn't seen it again since it debuted on the big screen. I was a little jaded the first time from the early review I read here and thought it was OK. Having seen again many months later and away from all comments and criticisms, I have to say I really enjoyed it much more the second time around.
I felt that wall-e message's was simply one of anti-hedonistic overconsumption, which CRACKS ME UP since it came from pixar/disney …
and yes, wall-e, cars, as well as up, all 3 of which i thought would be pixar's first miss, weren't and I've given up trying to guess when/if they will flop …
Apparently that ridiculous police station walk-through actually happened in real life. It's a reminder that sometimes fact really is stranger – or less believable – than fiction.
dude — the estate/studio gave Abrams free reign and he ran with it. hence the term reboot. you hated the result. i [and many, many others] liked it — somewhat ironic since many of that very same group were skeptical when the trailers first appeared.
In the "overated" category, I would include "Twilight: New Moon". I did not see the first movie and somehow managed to miss 95% of all the hype around the franchise. The last few years my wife has allowed our (soon to be 13) daughter to invite one of her girlfriends for New Years Eve dinner/movie/sleepover. They all picked this movie. The kindest thing I can say about T:NM is that I am not the target audience. I thought it was mostly tedious with a (very) few bright spots, namely the werewolf CGI… well done and kept to a minimum. I've read a lot of complaints about movies with the "shaky cam" but this film overdoes the "spin around the subject until you no longer think it's neat but are starting to reach for your airsickness bag" cam. When I know next to nothing about a movie and recite dialog almost word for word before the character on screen does… well that's just another term for "formula".
I can certainly see why my wife and daughter liked the movie with its Romeo and Juliet like influences and eye-candy for the ladies, but come on… the number of times "Bella" needlessly endangers herself to get a whiff of "vampire boyfriend essence" makes me want to hang a Jeff Foxworthy "stupid" sign around her neck.
Having said all that I liked the idea of werewolves being of American Indian lineage (maybe because of my 1/8th heritage) and thought Taylor Lautner did a pretty good job of acting in spite of his shirtlessness. Most of the time though I spent checking my watch wondering how much longer I had to sit there. It's not that I don't enjoy the occasional "romantic" movie, because I do. I really like "Forever Young" with Mel Gibson for instance. After watching T:NM, though, I had to go home and watch Jason Statham in "The Transporter" to feel like a guy again.
Oh, damn, "Harry Potter and the Half Blood Prince" was so awful that, after suffering through it, I had a choice of either heading for the bathroom to upchuck – or sneaking into the next theater to see 'The Hangover'. I chose the latter and got the bad taste out of my mouth. Nothing like seeing a good movie to get over a bad one.
As for 'worst' films – I wouldn't put "Twilight: New Moon" in that category simply because it wasn't awful enough to qualify. But it still sucked. Chris Weitz does to cinematic tension what hunters do to baby harp seals. And, as I slumped in my chair begging the Almighty to please make this stupid movie come to an end, I started to envy those damned seals.
"Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen" is one of those films where 5 minutes after starting it, you're desperately searching the bottom of the screen for subtitles because nothing makes sense. Oh, yeah – and your ears hurt and you need Tylenol for your headache.
"The Hurt Locker" is overrated? Really? The budget was listed at $11m and it only opened in four theaters in NYC and LA. Most people haven't even heard of it and it was a damn good movie. I would call that underrated, if anything.
Precious-A Novel By Someone who really hates Precious! Thanks for that, John. Indeed.
I am pretty with you on this list, Watchman is a fanboy flick so I get that, but CHE?
I loved the Hangover. It was just a funny, stupid, crude movie trying to be funny, stupid and crude.
Didn't see most of those movies, but of the ones I did see this year, "The Road" tops my list for most powerful movie–I was glad to see it also made your list. I also really enjoyed "Up"–it hit my emotions in all the ways a good movie should.
"Star Trek" I enjoyed just because it was fun. (Full disclosure: I'm not a huge Trek fan.) It's not perfect by any means, as my good Trekker friends pointed out in great detail the weekend it opened, but it was well acted and a decent reboot that performed admirably at its job of making me want to see another one.
Hurt Locker was excellent.
Star Trek was great. I'm not sure what this "anti-military" tone is…
Watchmen was more enjoyable than Star Trek? I'm shocked. Shocked.
I'm not going to throw around my Star Trek credentials other than I like the series. That said, this movie was neither great or horrible. It was better than most movies out in theaters today. The only reason I rented this one was because I was a Star Trek fan. In the end it was exciting and enjoyable, but as spock would say illogical. A writer would say full of plot holes semi-trucks can drive through. Me and my wife were practically laughing near the end with all the mistakes and half-baked ideas. That is on the merits of the movie and not on any relationship it has to the mythology.
I thought Karl Urban's Bones was spot on. Quinto's spock wasn't bad, and Ururah and Scotty were questionable. the actor for Checkov tried to hard and Sulu had no personality. Kirk was a bland, repetitive, bad boy who I couldn't believe would someday be the Kirk of legend. To paraphrase the badguy, "you were a great man in a previous franchise." Not in this one.
A fun, watchable, likable film. Not among the best Star Trek movies, but not even close to the worst.
I am with you. After all the hype about The Hangover, I was expecting something as funny as Animal House. There were a few good lines, a few things to laugh at, but all in all, it was way overrated by the public.
I was going to give him a -1 but I gave him a +1 to make up for you.
Regardless of who is signing the paychecks, the analogy to the present day U.S. military is obvious.
That is my question whenever I see a trailer for a Torrintino film of any kind. Having seen a few of them I still don't get it. They are violent filth-laden trash no better than your average teen slasher film.
Inglourious Basterds is the film of the decade!
Arrivaderchi!
I also thought Sorayana M was fantastic (everyone should watch it) but it came out in 2008.
LOVE your having Transformers as the top 5 on your Worst list, LOL.
I agree. I didn't see 'Che', but isn't that the glorification of a communist murderer? Correct me if I'm wrong; like I said I haven't seen it but I can't imagine why it would end up on anyone's 'best of' list.
Also agree about the Harry Potter movie, I actually thought it was pretty good (and I'm not really a fan of Harry Potter, just a casual viewer).
I'm glad you labeled the first 10 your "favorite." I hope this humility catches on. Because, I'm sorry to say, none of these films is great. Some aren't even good. A few are bad. How can I say this? And is there an "objective" standard for greatness, or goodness, or badness? Who can say that something which pleases a single person has failed to achieve a certain standard of quality?
In any case, I believe that whatever passes for a public standard has been seriously degraded and concurrently we've been conditioned to adjust our criteria, as well as our critical faculties, downward. It's a slow and subconscious fall. In a way, we can't help it. We respond to the marketplace and what it offers. Crap becomes acceptable, the acceptable becomes passable, the passable becomes relatively "good" (for lack of a better word), and the "good" becomes the "best." Thus middling and sporadically coherent "comedies" like "The Hangover" find their way onto year-end lists (though, again, all due appreciation to your caveat "favorite").
Sherlock Holmes wasn't so much an 'update for a new audience' as it was a return to form. It was much closer to the novels and short stories of Doyle than nearly every Holmes film before it. So it's ironic that Ritchie's film is being criticized as not true to the original Holmes when in fact it is simply not true to all the Hollywood bastardizations of Holmes that have come before.
I liked Star Trek, it was probably the best of the series by far, but I'm not a big Star Trek fan and the movie did have that deus ex machina of using time travel (which I generally dislike). Overall though it was pretty good.
I liked Ryan Reynolds Deadpool at the beginning, not so much what they turned him into at the end, but I thought he was one of the bright spots of the movie.
Zombieland was awesome, that should definitely make the 'best of' list.
Yes, talking animals are fairy tale-esque when they talk on their own. Much like Aslan in the Narnia series.
Animals talking through the aid of high-tech, dog translating collars? Not so much.
I'm a big fan of George McDonald's fairy tales. Plus, Andrew Lang's books are must reading fairy tale goodness.
Look, folks. "Up" stunk. Just accept it. No need trying to polish this turd.
I watched thirty minutes of it before turning it off in disgust. What a waste of time.
Star Trek was about character chemistry and back story,
I didn't watch it for plot consistency. I enjoyed seeing if a new crop of actors could capture and illuminate the original fire. For the most part they did. It was great, stupid fun.
Trek was actually a chick flick except for Green Girl. That was for the guys.
As a quote from "The Book Of Hollywood Quotes" says, "Every successful movie is actually a love story between two men." Kirk and Spock, together forever.
Nope. You are wrong. It was a terrific movie. You just have terrible taste!
It was a legitimate interpretation from the books, I suppose, but I freely admit it just didn't do it for me. Anyone can punch people…I always loved watching Holmes' reasoning and deductive abilities and I just felt Ritchie gave them SUCH short shrift in favor of the unending action sequences. (someone who never picked up a story before the film would very much wonder why Holmes on paper sits around so much just…talking to people) I still feel Jeremy Brett nailed Holmes the best in the Granada t.v. series.
I thought Wall-E was great, and I tend to be one who sits there looking for something to be offended about.
I thought Monsters Inc was their stumble, but I haven't seen it. I just heard that from people I know who usually like Pixar and from my dislike for the trailers. Maybe I've been wrong.
I enjoy the background on your Trek watching, but I'm surprised you would say "even a few episode of DS9 . . . were good." To me, it was clearly the best of the Trek spinoffs, and I would personally say I like it best of Trek, period. It was an incredible, underrated show.
Fewer agree, but I've been watching my DVDs of Voyager since June and I still really like the show. There are things I wish were different, like the ship being a little more beat up from week to week, but it's a lot of fun and a lot less stuffy than TNG.
Anyway, I just saw the Abrams movie on Christmas Eve and was underwhelmed. I really thought I would love it, but I just thought it was okay. It ranks alongside the better Treks, but not in the top slot.
I really, really liked Drag me to Hell! I'm a huge fan of 70s horror films and it seemed to fit into that category well for me. My tops for this year would be Gran Torino and The Hangover.
You must be logged in to post a comment.