20. Punch Drunk Love
19. Werckmeister Harmonies
18. Mulholland Drive
17. The Lord of the Rings: Return of the King
14. Grizzly Man
10. Lord of War
9. No Country for Old Men
8. Catch Me If You Can
7. The Dark Knight
6. Kill Bill, Vol. 1
5. Match Point
4. 28 Days Later
2. The Departed
1. There Will Be Blood
I just finished watching all the Coen Brothers movies a few weeks ago and after much pondering, I have classified my favs of theirs and systematically regressed to my least favs of theirs. Low and behold: Here is the list, starting from the best.
1. Fargo: the film not only captures a terrific storying that has the poise of comedy and drama, but its environment sketches out its own character amuck all the mayhem created by the Coen's flawed characters. This is a movie you can easily watch when flipping around on the television, because everything in it is so entertaining and compelling. If you've seen Fargo, you've been to Fargo.
2. No Country For Old Men: they not only vitalized Cormac McCarthy's dark novel, they set the table entirely different. Okay, so the plot of the movie is very faithful to the book, but the performances create a depth of their own. And with the Coens behind the camera, they know how to tell a story that is as flawed with its convention as it is with its characters.
3. Barton Fink: I think what gets me most with this film is the sheer ability to relate to this writer. The Coens put a dignified, middle-class writer into a superficial and commercialized industry that he cannot mentally grasp. The film is a surreal depiction on the degradation of the mind into writer's block. Prepare to be squeamish.
4. Blood Simple: the pace is hypnotically slow, so that may make some people ambivalent. But for the Coens first film, this is a marvellous achievement. The characters in this movie make so many mistakes, it is easy to perceive Blood Simple as a contrived blend of drama. Don't see it that way, the human lapse is not the cinematic lapse, it is a cinematic brilliance.
5. Raising Arizona: Nicolas Cage has that blue collar smugness as an ex-con married to an ex-cop played by Laura Linney. This film was reminiscent of Wild At Heart, with Cage in this Elvis-esque ego. But Raising Arizona is as screwball as the Coens come, and oddly, this film does more than just work.
6. The Big Lebowski: The Dude is a classic character and we practically taste those white russians every time he indulges in one. This is some odd fantasy the Coens have here, which plays out like a peculiar fairy tale...with bowling pins. Either the humour works for you or it doesn't. But the Coens find a way to immerse into the spinning absurdism of this picture.
7. A Serious Man: I hated it on the first view but i somewhat embraced it the second time around. It has great performances, yes, but the Coens find this dead pan comedy within such a catastrophic midlife crisis. More for the Jewish? Yes, but there is enough for the goyim to relish in --- that iridescent time period.
8. Burn After Reading: it has some very flat, way too low key moments, but the film seems to love reducing its characters to every lowest denominator that we can't help but laugh at this pathetic fallacy.Where the farcical element embodies this film is in giving power to people who really shouldn't have it. Laugh if you dare.
9. Miller's Crossing: the film falters heavily in not crafting its character to the point of caring, but it's filmmaking is taut. As we watch a hat bluster across in a forest, the film is more hypnotic than dramatic.
10. The Hudsucker Proxy: it has a visual style yes that is virtuously kinetic but its attempt at a Howard Hawks spinoff is a slight misstep. The plot is a delicious finger poke at economics. It's convoluted, at times way too silly, but unique in style. Style, for Coens, is always enough.
11. The Man Who Wasn't There: Billy Bob Thornton is the perfect cynic as the laconic barber. The Coens black and white cinematography is a Wellesian feast, but the emotional detachment adds little to the film's sorrowfully cumbersome narrative.
12. O Brother, Where Art Thou?: I love the aspect of the Odyssey and Clooney is especially terrific. But cliches act like dead ends in this thing: there's KKK clans, Coen write off characters, and a intersecting musical that dominates way too much of the third quarter. A great soundtrack however.
13. Intolerable Cruelty: The Coens humour is just too silly for this mainstream screwball. It's all plot at times and then suddenly all about the banter. It was too uneven. The Coens are better at inducing an element of fantasy in their comedies; this film felt too simple yet too oddly dense with its comedy. Performances are good however and the puffer gag is a hoot.
14. The Ladykillers: what happened?
I now await True Grit, which releases at the end of 2010 I believe. Go Coens Go!!! Let me know what your favs/least favs of the Coens are. I'd love to hear and compare.
It is time to list those movies that I just shook my head at ferociously for its overrated appeal by the mainstream, esoteric, or that unreliable box office. Most of these films are loved by so many, but I find myself in a minority. And boy, do I love it!
Transformers–loud, annoying, absurd, and a 320 million lottery winner at the box office. Bay finds his audience because who doesn't like the Transformer toys? I don't, and guess what? I hated this 143 minute action show. One of my worst of that year.
The Shawshank Redemption–rated the best movie of all time on IMDB.com. This is a very good movie, but nowhere near a cinema classic. Critics, chill.
Chicago–I fell asleep and it won best picture. I thought they provided pills to curing insomnia, not Oscars.
Police, Adjective–nothing happens. At times that can be fascinating, but Police, Adjective's didactic subversiveness made this a tedious ride that most critics praised.
Forrest Gump–I've watched it at least three times and I still don't get the brilliance. Hanks overacts, the director overdirects, and the film drags. 3 stars, okay, it's kind of good.
Braveheart–I enjoy the war scenes but this is one ostentatious epic lead by Mel Gibson. Not my cup of tea and definitely not a best picture winner (which it won in 1995.
Titanic–grossed just over 1.8 million and I only had a somewhat good time. A nice romance, but not a great movie.
Avatar–got by on its revolutionary visuals. I still think 3d is a gimmick and I still think this is an amazingly overrated film. Thank god, the Oscars woke up and awarded the best picture to the rightful owner last year.
The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers–this film has the pace of a tortoise on steroids. At one time, it's fast paced, the other it is crawling. The ending fight is overblown, albeit entertaining, yet way too long.
Mystic River–This is the most pretentious Clint film out there. I'll elaborate upon request.
Monsters, Inc.–I know, you think I'm an idiot! But I never connected to that little girl, the jokes were only for the kids, the plot was a disaster, and there tone problems to be had. An amateur pixar film that everyone peed their pants over. Save that for the monsters in your closet.
The Secret In Their Eyes–I fell asleep in that first half and by then I had lost interest. It has a great tracking shot in the middle, but critics have rejoiced this movie for its tension and astounding story on morals and love. It's a story of shut eye for me.
The Hangover–I get the unbelievable ability to relate to these characters (who 19+ has not had a hangover?) but this film simply did not make me laugh. Well written ,just not for me. So go ahead, troll me!
Léon The Professional–I liked this movie up until I saw it was #34 Best of All Time on IMDB.com. Say what? Natalie Portman is great in her first role ever but the action scenes are very played out. I was left very ambivalent in the end.
War of the Worlds–I hate watching deeply flawed movies with a screaming Dakota Fannning. If that's your cup of tea then go have cuddles with a Tasmanian Devil. I'll hate this one happily thank you.
Requiem for a Dream–I have beef with Darren Aronofsky. He is the most hyper kinetic and confused director next to Guy Ritchie. I disliked Pi (a ripoff of Lynch's Eraserhead) and I found no soft spot for The Wrestler (next to Rourke). Here there is a promising first half with some potential themes and nice jump cuts, but the film degrades into a camera "look what i can do" frenzy. It's so meaningless and yet people love it. I didn't know Film 101 was so big these days.
How To Train Your Dragon–Wow, this film gets 98% fresh on Rotten Tomatoes.com! Yes, the animations are stellar but give these characters some humanity. I could not relate to any of these characters not the dragons either. I will stick to WALLE for now.
Shutter Island–Scorsese is my favourite director but this film is all over the place. He never finds a unique style here and the painful first half tries to be mysterious but is just so unusually dull. Nowhere near the 'classic' praise this film is getting. Marty is better than this. Check out Cape Fear and then tell me Shutter Island is dynamite. Go on, say it! Try not to laugh!
So there it is. My most overrated films of the last two decades. Go on! Troll me, curse me, salute me, whatever! Everything here is so inferior in proportion to the praise it gets.
This is Parker Mott from the Final Take signing off.
French New Wave film was well-known for its approach to the Parisian youth. There is a contest between the youth and adult in Truffaut’s The 400 Blows. By society,the adults have been deemed leaders of the young. They teach them, parent them, but do not understand them. Since young filmmakers were the creators of French New Wave films, they interpreted their age as a misunderstood group, under pretentious adult control.
Truffaut exercises an element of height through intricate camera work. In the classroom, the young boys are viewed from a higher angle and the teacher from a lower one. This does not imply the teacher as superior or the students as inferiors, but it rather shows that he is more physically matured, which instils him in a position that demands respect from the youth. These angle, however, are subtle; if Truffaut had the boys at an explicitly higher angle, then they would appear as inferior, which is not Truffaut’s goal. The only time Truffaut uses a very high angle is when the boys are jogging in gym class. As the boys jog behind their teacher, the group slowly disintegrates as most of the boys leave. Here, however, Truffaut is not interested in exercising the distinguishing heights between adult and youth, but rather providing a bird’s eye-view of the scenario. Unlike the excerpt, the shot creates humor, not solemnity. Therefore, the use of the subtle high and low angles explain the teacher is granted authority due to his age and height, not that he deserves it.
Furthermore, the choices of sound in the scene are intriguing. At times, it is not about what the audience is hearing, but rather what they are not. Firstly, the classroom throughout the entire scene is generally silent. The only voice in the room is the teacher as he seeks out a student to read an excerpt from “The Hare”. When there is a knock on the classroom door, all remains quiet. It is so quiet, in fact, the audience can hear the teacher’s footsteps as he marches towards the door. This moment of tranquility expresses something quite superficial: the boys are quiet not because they respect their teacher, but because the hierarchy between student and teacher submits that they are meant to sit, listen, and obey, as disciplined boys do. Truffaut does not believe that boys should abide by this; his disposition is shown when the teacher walks past the boys towards the door and they all stand up once he is not looking. Truffaut uses a pan, like in the gym class scene, to dramatize a gradual action: the children are obeying the adult–suddenly, they are not. Therefore, Truffaut provides a subtext here: the children should act like children–being full of adventure and curiosity.
Perhaps the most resonant noise (though there are few) in the scene is when Antoine’s father strikes him twice across the face. This section of the scene is shocking through two methods: how it is staged and heard. Firstly, when Antoine’s father gets a hold of him, the camera does not film this encounter in one shot. Instead, it cuts when the father grabs and then slaps Antoine. What this does is stage the slap, giving it a distinction from the rest of the scene. Also, the father’s upper body is in the shot, while Antoine’s head is only visible as he looks upwards at his father. This shot correlates with the height distinction between youth and adult: the adults (in this case, the father) gain authority because of their surmounting height, the reason to why the youth (Antoine) literally look up to them. Secondly, realistic audio, being a proverbial element of French New Wave cinema, is a part of the slap. Therefore, when Antoine is struck, knowing this is an authentic sound, the viewer is induced with catharsis in that they feel the pain Antoine feels.
At the end of the scene though, silence is dominant. The example of this is when Antoine walks off into a desolate street in a long-panning shot. The lack of diegetic or non-diegetic audio creates a striking symbol: the youth in 1950’s France are isolated and alone in an adult society that accuses them of wrongdoings.
In conclusion, this excerpt is effective because its attention is focused on Antoine and how he struggles to break free from a society of adult control. Truffaut demonstrates through sight and sound that adults seem more reliable than the youth because of their surpassing height and age. Therefore, The 400 Blows is an experimental film, critiquing a society that failed to recognize the young image.
Best Performance by an Actress in a Leading Role
Sandra Bullock for The Blind Side (2009)
Helen Mirren for The Last Station (2009)
Carey Mulligan for An Education (2009)
Gabourey Sidibe for Precious: Based on the Novel Push by Sapphire (2009)
Meryl Streep for Julie & Julia (2009)
Who Should Win: Carey Mulligan–honestly have not seen the movie but have heard great things.
Who Will Win: Sandra Bullock-her performance here is drenched in Oscar dressing. An overly sappy, pretentious performance that will, as Oscars tend to do, be overrated.
Best Performance by an Actor in a Supporting Role
Matt Damon for Invictus (2009)
Woody Harrelson for The Messenger (2009/I)
Christopher Plummer for The Last Station (2009)
Stanley Tucci for The Lovely Bones (2009)
Christoph Waltz for Inglourious Basterds (2009)
Who Should Win: Stanley Tucci–just riveting as a relatively innocuous (on the surface) neighbour who is actually the murderer of Suzy Salmon. He is obsessive, subtle, bleak, and frightening, here. An oscar here would be well-deserved.
Who Will Win: Christoph Waltz–playing the Jew Hunter with such intelligence, wit, yet explosive impetuousness. It would a good win for the actor and for Tarantino and would also demonstrate the importance of tri-lingualism in films.
Best Performance by an Actor in a Leading Role
Jeff Bridges for Crazy Heart (2009)
George Clooney for Up in the Air (2009/I)
Colin Firth for A Single Man (2009)
Morgan Freeman for Invictus (2009)
Jeremy Renner for The Hurt Locker (2008)
Who Should Win: George Clooney–I know he's the typical pick but Clooney proves himself even more in Reitman's film. He is not only charming, but damn that stud can act with such emotional conviction.
Who Will WIn: Jeff Bridges–I have not seen Crazy Heart but I hear Jeff Bridge's performance is strong and redemptive. He will do what Mickey Rourke failed to achieve.
Best Performance by an Actress in a Supporting Role
Penélope Cruz for Nine (2009)
Vera Farmiga for Up in the Air (2009/I)
Maggie Gyllenhaal for Crazy Heart (2009)
Anna Kendrick for Up in the Air (2009/I)
Mo'Nique for Precious: Based on the Novel Push by Sapphire (2009
Who Should WIn: Vera Farmiga–this performance could have been easily overdrawn, but Farmiga plays a much more modest performance about a woman who is the female version of Clooney's character "except with a vagina." She is promiscuous yes but there is something more to her–a fictitious character humanized to the max as a woman with great charm who romances with a man disparage of a connection.
Who Will Win: Mo'Nique–a chilling performance with one redeeming quality–she is just like her daughter, but she never had a choice to fight back in her life.
Best Achievement in Directing
Kathryn Bigelow for The Hurt Locker (2008)
James Cameron for Avatar (2009)
Lee Daniels for Precious: Based on the Novel Push by Sapphire (2009)
Jason Reitman for Up in the Air (2009/I)
Quentin Tarantino for Inglourious Basterds (2009)
Who Should and Will Win: Kathryn Bigelow–I predict a shocker in which the ex-wife topples the billionaire male director. Now there's a plot for you.
Best Motion Picture of the Year
Avatar (2009): James Cameron, Jon Landau
The Blind Side (2009): Nominees to be determined
District 9 (2009): Peter Jackson, Carolynne Cunningham
An Education (2009): Finola Dwyer, Amanda Posey
The Hurt Locker (2008): Nominees to be determined
Inglourious Basterds (2009): Lawrence Bender
Precious: Based on the Novel Push by Sapphire (2009): Lee Daniels, Sarah Siegel-Magness, Gary Magness
A Serious Man (2009): Joel Coen, Ethan Coen
Up (2009): Jonas Rivera
Up in the Air (2009/I): Daniel Dubiecki, Ivan Reitman, Jason Reitman
Who Should and Will Win: Kathryn Bigelow–this film is not my best film of the year (mine were much more esoteric) but The Hurt Locker has something special. It is a grandiose action film upheld with strong themes, high tension, and a bleak tone on the problematic yet incessant addiction war can expose.
[*]Best Animated Film
Fantastic Mr. Fox
The Princess and the Frog
The Secret of Kells
Who Should Win: Fantastic Mr Fox–more than just a simple kids movie with adult emotion. Though those assets are a necessity, Fantastic Mr. Fox offers its own genre–a Romanticist and impressionistic study of animal life. It should be called Animal House but that's taken. What a fantastic Mr. Anderson.
Who Will Win: Up. This is a great movie but it lacks auteur traits. Up will win though due to its appeal to adults and kids. It tells a story of a rather likeable old man trying to finish what him and his spouse Ellie failed to do. This film is crushingly emotional and will win because it is by Pixar and has that non-risqué quality that the Oscars escape to.
So that's it folks. Let me know what you think, comment please. And we shall see what happens in early March.
Ok everyone, I have received several comments on my latest reviews about why I write about how much I like/dislike a movie and give it a certain rating that is unsatisfactory to how I perceive the film. I am going to draw out a scale of my ratings and declare what each star represents so I can clarify the method to my madness. I like to think I rate films on a four-star scale but those special "unicorn" movies get that extra .5 to 1 star extra (i.e. Goodfellas or A Clockwork Orange or even There Will Be Blood). So here is the list and I hope this will clarify things. Adieu and please comment.
Zero Stars (Bomb)–I'd rather poke my eyes out with a rusty screw–probably one of the worst films ever digested out of cinema.
Half-1 Star-Well it's terrible and that's a compliment for this film. By all means do not see it and I apologize for telling you about this film.
1.5 Stars-Not a good one, really poor in most ways, by all means avoid.
2 Stars-The odd thing is decent, but there are too many issues to recommend this particular flop.
2.5 Stars-Some very good elements here, but there are too many issues here to make it a commendable film. Maybe a rental.
3 Stars-A solid film. Has some issues but overall a worth-watching experience that you should go and see in theatres.
3.5 Stars-Excellent. Very minor issues but inundated with virtuosity in direction, writing, et al. By all means, see it.
4 Stars-Friggin' phenomenal. A best picture and worth every penny; should not be avoided and is supersedes most films abilities nowadays.
4.5 Stars-one of those very rare films that reinvents the wheel for cinema and strives beyond and beyond cinema conventions. It has a lot to say and it delivers it perfectly. More than just a see it–a purchase on DVD and definitely a new religion should form around it.
5 Stars-almost impossible. To receive one of these from me is like winning the lottery–there is always a chance but it will probably never happen (Goodfellas won the lottery though!)
Hope that clarifies things. Please read this so when you read my reviews you will understand how I rate things according to how I envisioned the film in its entirety.
PS-Please watch the Final Take on youtube, myself and bondfreak have the links. We had copyright issues with the jerks from paramount but it will be fixed eventually. Stay tuned and subscribe!!! THANKS!
Boogie Nights is a film with a pulse. It is full of quirky characters who are seemingly intertwined in a story about the adult film industry. There is never only one incident happening at a time. Instead, there are many different subplots that ultimately circulate around the central plot point: the rise (and perhaps fall) of the young star Dirk Diggler (Mark Wahlberg). In the opening scene, director Paul Thomas Anderson uses the tracking shot, in which he continuously moves the camera without cutting. This makes the experience seem more realistic, by knowing that no editing was done to manipulate what the audience is meant to see. Instead, the audience is naturally introduced to all the characters, allowing them to get their feet wet in a story of a young boy who dreams of living life in the fast lane.
Using the tracking shot, Anderson makes the camera perform as more of a spectator, allowing the audience to see what they want to. Essentially, the camera is like a person entering the club, trying to mix in with the crowd who Anderson wants us to be familiar with. As to whether Anderson uses subjective or authorial focalization is arguable because the camera does not follow just one person’s point of view. It follows one person for a moment and then moves over to another. Therefore, these transitions merely create an objective element and since most of the scene does not circulate around one particular character, all the subjective focalizations perhaps combine into, ultimately, an authorial one (or maybe there is a dominant subjectivity, that being in the imaginary spectator).
It is very important to note that the entire scene is built on only one complete movement. In order to execute this shot effectively, Anderson uses a Steadicam (except for the crane work at the very beginning of the scene), which is a camera that attaches to the cameraman by harness. It has a drifty feel, which creates a dreamlike sensation on screen. This purpose calls to mind the Steadicam tracking shot from Scorsese’s Goodfellas, in which the main character, Henry Hill, accompanies his girlfriend through the back entrance of the Copacabana Club towards a front row seat at a comedy show within the club. Indeed Anderson’s goal definitely relates to Scorsese’s here: to illustrate that the particular life the audience has been introduced to is, in fact, an ethereal and great one.
Immediately, we are given a medium shot of the film’s title, Boogie Nights. However, the title is not artificially displayed on the screen, but it is rather incorporated into the story to instantly provide an aesthetic to the audience that carries a very ‘70s vibe: a sign shining in pink neon lights. Also, Anderson uses this image to foreshadow the main character’s infatuation with having his name, Dirk Diggler, shining in the California streets this very way. Afterwards, the camera tilts on a vertical axis, which seems like quite an implausible angle for someone to experience. Anderson uses this viewpoint to explain that someone’s life is going to turn one hundred and eighty degrees and that the impossible, for this particular character, will perhaps become the possible.
Once the camera makes a pan-like movement down to ground level, we see a luxurious limo pull up to the entrance. The camera now acts like a person (or perhaps a fly on the wall), organically incorporated into the story, in which it observes various conversations that mean really nothing more than just people being glad to see each other. Interestingly, the camera does not enter the action (the conversation) by cutting from the far to the near (a method much inspired by Alfred Hitchcock); it moves closer and closer to the front door, thus putting the audience into the heart of the action without even cutting.
Also, we seem to follow Maurice (Luis Guzman) the nightclub owner for a long part of the scene, because he starts as the highlighted character, who carries the most energy and willingness to greet all the main characters who are revelling in the club. Eventually, the camera goes directly onto the dance floor, spinning around four of the main characters, as they continue to dance and converse. Without cutting and providing a continuous circular movement around the characters, Anderson makes the action move like gangbusters and we feel as if we are dancing too (or perhaps, this technique is an effective method to overcome the blocking between the four characters who are moving constantly in a small particular area of the dance floor).
At the end of the tracking shot, the camera comes to a halt at the main character, Dirk Diggler, as he cleans glasses at a bar. Anderson uses a slow motion push-in on this character to emphasize that this is the character we are meant to follow seriously during the film. Along with this, the slow-motion creates the most intense dreamlike sensation in the scene, proposing that this is the character who holds the fantasy of becoming a star.
As for audio, it is more or less completely diegetic because Anderson wants the audience to live in the now with these characters. It is not about what they are thinking (internal diegetic), it is all about what they are doing and saying to what defines their personality. For example, Buck (Don Cheadle) is obsessed with his cowboy appearance. When Maurice confronts him, all that can be heard is Buck praising his newly fashioned cowboy outfit. Most notably, the key line in the entire shot is when Amber (Julianne Moore) asks Rollergirl (Heather Graham) if she called “that girl” today. Anderson makes this line clear to the audience because it establishes all the characters’ relationships. Anderson states that, “these are people who know each other very well…[and] by using ‘that girl’ instead of a proper noun, it really tells the audience a lot about these people—they’re family, which was one of [his] major objectives in shooting this scene” (Anderson). Arguably though, there is an element that we never know whether is diegetic or non-diegetic—this being the song “Best of My Love” by The Emotions that is playing throughout the entire scene. It starts off with the song palpitating to the shot of the pink sign reading Boogie Nights. So, it seems, at first, it is clearly non-diegetic, until the camera enters the nightclub and the music continues at the same volume. It now becomes probable that the song is playing in the club, thus making the music a diegetic feature. Most likely, Anderson combines these two elements into one in order to start and end the shot with a fast-paced song, instead of beginning with silence and then moving into the club, and starting the music then.
With lighting, Anderson uses it as another way to create a vibe and dress the scene in a ‘70s style. The nightclub is somewhat dark, but it is overtaken with illumination of the various flickering lights and disco balls. Furthermore, the use of low key lighting is not dominant in the scene because there is no need for Anderson to establish a sense of mystery in the characters. In fact, Anderson’s purpose here is to allow the audience to learn anything and everything they can about these people in order to move the film along.
In conclusion, this segment in Boogie Nights can be regarded as a mise-en-scéne, in which Anderson epitomizes a setting through one single shot and gives the audience all the information he wants them to get. Essentially, it is an effective way to meet all the characters and establish a dreamy temperament in a film about a boy’s dreams of becoming a star turning into a reality.
Happy New Year everyone. Now that the new decade has arrived and more brilliant films are to come, here are my top 10 films this year that I will running to the theatre to on their release date. Enjoy and let me know where you stand too!
10. Alice in Wonderland-in 3D and its a reinvention of the classic story through the eyes of the expressionist Tim Burton? Why miss it?
9. Machete-sure to be a parodical film with cheesy 70s style and acting, but i'm sure it'll slash its way onto the charts.
8. Clash of the Titans-epic CGI tends to lead to weak narrative films, but I hope Clash will end this common trend.
7. Inception-from the brilliant mind of Christopher Nolan, Inception stars Leonardo DiCaprio and has a teaser that already makes my heart palpitate with anxiety.
6. Shrek Forever After-let's put Shrek 3 behind us and hope for a little magic in this fourth instalment, go Shrek go!
5. The Last Airbender-the new M. Night film about a bunch of avatars and tribes coexisting in peaceful turned turbulent world. M. Night is on a three game losing streak (after Village, Lady in the Water, and the Happening), I hope he'll come out victorious this time.
4. Survival of the Dead-Romero is back with more zombies and more allegorical undertones about society. Need I say more?
3. Nowhere Boy-the trailer made this film look like a modest depiction of the rise of the Beatles. It looks smart and compelling. It's not too in your face it seems and I like that.
2. The White Ribbon-Michael Hanaeke's new film about religious boys putting theology into their own hands. This one looks very interesting.
1. Shutter Island-one word: Scorsese.
10. A Serious Man (Also Biggest Disappointment of the Year)
9. Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince
8. Friday The 13th
7. The Unborn
6. Funny People
3. Transformers 2: Revenge of the Fallen
2. Year One
1. Angels and Demons