Movie Rankings 2009

I've still yet to see a couple of the more important films from the year ("A Serious Man," "The Informant!") but I don't guess I'll get a chance until next month when they hit DVD. So we'll have to move on without them. 2009 was a top heavy year for me. I gave out a lot of "A" grades this time around; more than I have in several years. After that, however, there wasn't just a whole lot to get excited about one way or another. I didn't see nearly as many bad movies this year as I would usually anticipate but there also weren't a whole lot of those movies where I came out thinking, "that was exactly what I thought it would be: not great but entertaining." Most of the movies that wind up in the middle of this list were disappointing as opposed to surprisingly good. Kind of a weird year all around.

A word about rankings. I have for years struggled with how to describe my rankings. I don't necessarily rank in order from best film of the year to worst film. Rather, I grade and then rank based on a combination of quality and enjoyment. I also take into account the supposed goal of the film. If it aspires to be an Oscar winner but falls short, that is usually taken into consideration. If it is, however, just meant to be a fun escape from the real world and attains that goal, I think there's something to be said for that. The point is, I think a lot of really entertaining films that deliver exactly what they are designed to deliver are looked down upon by mainstream critics because they aren't "award worthy." And that's a shame in my book. I would not make the case that "Sherlock Holmes" is a better film than, say, "Invictus." If I were voting for Best Picture between the two, I'd vote for the latter. But when the rankings come around, "Holmes" and "Invictus" both hit on quality and aspiration, but "Holmes" was more enjoyable for me and is therefore ranked higher. And that's the way it goes for me.

THE TOP TEN
1. "It Might Get Loud" - The best film experience I had all year. A+

2. "Up" - I have always had a great love for the Pixar films. From "Toy Story" to last year's "Wall-E" Pixar delivers great entertainment and heartfelt story lines time and time again. "Up" may be the best Pixar has to offer and the one that finally garners a Best Picture Oscar nomination instead of just Best Animated Picture. This is as emotionally compelling as any live-action film I've seen in a long time. A+.

3. "Inglourious Basterds" - From the opening scene where Christoph Waltz's Nazi Jew Hunter completely CRUSHES a French dairy farmer using only his words to the final triumph of Brad Pitt's Aldo Raine, "Basterds" is brilliant. I've never been a big fan of Quentin Tarantino but I very much respect the work he is capable of doing and this, for me, is his best work. Say what you will about "Pulp Fiction," "Basterds" is, from a film standpoint, his crowning achievement. It is a slow burn built more around excellent dialogue and performances than anything else but has enough well placed action sequences to keep "Kill Bill" fans happy. A+.

4. "Up in the Air" - This was perhaps the best depressing film I've ever seen. Centering around a man whose job it is to fly around the country and fire employees for companies that can't do it themselves, this film borders on the "masterpiece" level despite the subject matter. The script and direction (done by superstar-in-the-making Jason Reitman) are both excellent but the true strength of this film is in the performances of it's three leading stars. Vera Farmiga is at her sultry best as a fellow traveler that our main character tragically falls for. Anna Kendrick surprised the heck out of everyone going from the dregs of the "Twilight" movies to this brilliant turn as the up-and-comer in the firing business. And George Clooney gives, for me, the best leading man performance of the year. He brilliantly navigates the complexity of a man who is equal parts driven, satisfied, and begrudgingly lonely, allowing the man to become neither depressing nor overly smug. Clooney again gives you the feeling that there is no other actor who could play his role. He is Daniel Day Lewis if Daniel Day Lewis had a sense of humor. A+.

5. "Avatar" - I've gone back and forth on where exactly this movie belongs in the rankings and I'm still not sure I'm settled. There are definite holes from a filmmaking standpoint but I cannot stress enough how incredibly enjoyable and entertaining "Avatar" is, and in the end that's what this thing is all about. A+.

6. "Moon" - Without question this is the least-seen movie of any on my Top Ten List. "Moon" centers around a man (Sam Rockwell) who supervises a drilling station on the Moon, his only companion being a talking computer voiced by Kevin Spacey. Really, however, it's about paranoia and good old fashioned sci-fi twists and turns. There aren't a lot of frills, special effects, or explosions but the story is so classically science fiction that I couldn't help but love it. Another writer I read a lot said that at the end of his screening, another patron stood up and yelled, "Now THAT is what a sci-fi film is supposed to be." There's very little that I can say about "Moon" without giving away too much. Sam Rockwell has received no support from the studio for his work here which is a shame because his performance is masterful. Director Duncan Jones looks like a superstar in the making and I can't wait to see what he does in the future. A.

7. "Star Trek" - Unquestionably the most fun I had in the theater this year. This was an absolute blast from beginning to end and left me and about 250 million other people dying for the next installment. A.

8. "The Hurt Locker" - I would call this the first legitimate war movie about the current war in Iraq. "Locker" centers around a bomb disarming unit and the mental beating these soldiers take. Jeremy Renner gives a coming-out performance that should catapult him to the Hollywood A-list. His character is addicted to the rush and imminent threat of death his job entails. And yet as unaffected as he would have you believe he is, his fragility is evident in many of his actions. It seems he would welcome death were it to happen on his terms while still knowing how much he has to live for. I almost wouldn't classify this as a war movie because the battles that usually mark a straight war film are lacking here. But if it is a war movie, it's the best I've seen since "Saving Private Ryan." A.



9. "Sherlock Holmes" - If "Star Trek" was the most fun I had at the theater this year, "Holmes" was the second most fun. The chemistry between Robert Downey Jr.'s Holmes and Jude Law's Watson is extraordinary, the dialogue is quick and hip, and the action sequences are perfectly placed. It is ridiculous and out of control in many places but that only adds to it's appeal, at least for me. "Holmes" is one of those rare films that doesn't take itself too seriously and still manages to come across as brilliantly structured. My only complaint is the lackluster use of both Rachel McAdams and Marc Strong. A.

10. "Harry Potter and the Half Blood Prince" - I am a total Harry Potter nerd so it should be no surprise that I love each and every one of these movies. Now, there are some issues for me with what was left out of the book but just based on the film itself, I think this was the best of the group so far. The film's makers work seamlessly to pair outstanding visuals with acting performances that continue to get better and better with each film. I absolutely cannot wait for the final two parts of this story. A.

THE REST OF THE "A's"
11. "Away We Go" - Maybe too hipster for some, I likened this to a poor-man's "Juno." John Krasinski and Maya Rudolph were both excellent in this tale of two people abandoned by family who trek across country looking for a new home for their expected child. There is a lot of quirky humor in "Away We Go" but also a couple of HAUNTINGLY authentic scenes about life. One of two movies this year that made me cry (along with "Up"). A



12. "The Hangover" A
13. "Zombieland" A
14. "Invictus" A

15. "District 9" - When I saw this I thought it was destined to sit on my Top 10 List. It would have definitely made it in 2008 or 2007 and the fact that it slipped to 15 this year shows how strong at the top the movie calendar was in 2009. Absolute genius work here all around. A

16. "Fantastic Mr. Fox" A-
17. "The Road" A-
18. "Taken" A-
19. "Sunshine Cleaning" A-

20. "500 Days of Summer" - One of the cooler films of the year and a badly needed fresh take on the romantic comedy. "Summer" features Zooey Deschanel at her most charming and Joseph Gordon-Levitt is so good you almost forget he also starred in "G.I. Joe" this year. A bit depressing at times, it is nevertheless realistic and beautiful. A-

21. "This Is It" A-
22. "State of Play" A-

B+
23. "Where the Wild Things Are" - Spike Jonze did an incredible job of capturing the up-and-down mood swings of a child and incorporating that into the fabric of his film. He did this so well, in fact, that the film feels so roller-coastery as to leave the viewer slightly uncomfortable throughout the whole run time.

24. "Brothers Bloom" - No one saw this little con movie starring Mark Ruffalo and Adrien Brody and that's a real shame. If you're a fan of the con, this is highly recommended.

25. "Funny People"
26. "Watchmen"

B
27. "Orphan" - I don't watch a whole lot of scary/horror films so you'll forgive me if this wasn't super original, I honestly have no idea. The twist at the end makes "Orphan" extremely memorable but the work done by Isabelle Fuhrman as child to Vera Farmiga's adoptive mother creates an excellent cat-and-mouse game throughout.

28. "Whip It"
29. "9" (not to be confused with "Nine")
30. "The Soloist"
31. "The Blind Side"


32. "Public Enemies" - It's hard for me call a movie I gave a B the most disappointing film of the year, but I think that's where I'm going with "Enemies." It's a good film, don't get me wrong, but when you tell me you've got Michael Mann directing Johnny Depp and Christian Bale in a story about one of the most famous criminals in the history of America, I'm going to expect a GREAT movie, not a good one.

33. "Big Fan"
34. "A Perfect Getaway"

35. "Fanboys" - If you're a "Star Wars" nerd like I am, "Fanboys" is more than worth the viewing. It's cheap laughter, sure, but it's still laughter. Highly enjoyable, at least for this nerd.

36. "17 Again"
37. "Inkheart" - Much better than I thought it would be.
38. "Couples Retreat"

B-
39. "I Love You, Man"

40. "Adventureland" - I didn't love this coming-of-age film as much as a lot of critics did but I definitely appreciate it. It has a slightly more unique take on the whole "going to college, becoming a man" thing than the average film.

41. "X-Men Origins: Wolverine"
42. "Monsters vs. Aliens"

43. "Transformers: Rise of the Fallen" - Not nearly as bad as everyone wants to make it out to be. Is it an Oscar caliber film? Of course not, but if you're expecting Oscar, don't go to a Michael Bay movie. This is what it is and what it is is pure entertainment, nothing more.


44. "The Taking of Pelham 123"
45. "Duplicity"

46. "Terminator: Salvation" - Another film that got destroyed by expectations versus reality. "Salvation" doesn't live up to the original "Terminator" or "T2" but from an action movie standpoint, it wasn't a complete disaster.

C+
47. "Land of the Lost" - Another that wasn't nearly as bad as it was made out to be. It's all about expectations, people. If you expect an earth shattering, ground breaking, original comedy, don't go see "Land of the Lost." If you're OK with cheap laughs based on Will Ferrell's typically juvenile humor, this isn't far off from many of his other films.

48. "Underworld: Rise of the Lycans"
49. "He's Just Not That Into You"
50. "Confessions of a Shopaholic"

C
51. "Extract" - Highly disappointing. There just really isn't a reason this movie should have been made.
52. "Push"

C-
53. "Paul Blart: Mall Cop" - I watched this three times over the course of five days on a cruise. It was hell.
54. "The International"

D
55. "The Invention of Lying" - Ricky Gervais is a certifiable comedic genius, but this proves that even genius goes bad when left unchecked. The entire movie is built on a false premise: it's not a world without lies but instead a world without filters - everyone just blurts out what's on their mind. The laughs are few and far between and somehow this even manages to make great comedians like Tina Fey seem unfunny.

56. "Bride Wars"

F
57. "G.I. Joe: Rise of Cobra" - Just so bad on every single level. The longer I've thought about this mess, the more I've come to hate it. Somehow "Transformers," "Land of the Lost," "Wolverine," and "Terminator" took all the heat this summer but in truth I'd rather watch all of those movies every day for the next month than watch this movie once. Terrible.

58. "Year One"

59. "Post Grad" - Occasionally my wife drags me to a movie I don't want to see. It doesn't happen too often, we both usually go out of the way to see movies we know the other will hate without them. Much like "House Bunny" last year, this is one of those cases when Lindsey dragged me to a movie and she ended up hating it as much as I did. "Post Grad" is incredibly inept in every single way. I did not laugh more than three times. In fact, it made me sad and not sad like I connected with the story line and felt for the character. No, I was sad because Michael Keaton and Carol Burnett were both in this freaking trainwreck of a film and I remember both of them actually having a career at one point. It's truly a tough thing to be worse than "G.I. Joe" or "Year One" but "Post Grad" fit the bill and brought strong contention to 2002's "Cabin Fever" as Worst Movie I've Ever Seen.

I'm hoping to see "Crazy Heart" this week,
Brian

"Fantastic Mr. Fox"

It’s an interesting thing seeing a movie during the middle of a work day. You can expect a much different environment during this time than any other. The staff is always either much friendlier or give off the impression that the previous night was a rough one. The popcorn tastes a little fresher and the bathrooms seem a little cleaner. Even the tickets are cheaper, reason enough to hit the mid-day showing whenever possible. But the real difference is the audience. If I see a movie on an average weekend evening, I can expect a large crowd of diverse people. If I see a mid-day movie on say, a Wednesday however, I know almost exactly what to expect.

The mid-day audience is made up of four standard groups:
a.) The Elders - I have found that no matter what the movie, there is almost ALWAYS an elderly couple in the theater;
b.) The Housewife - sometimes with kids, sometimes without, the mid-day movie is a big player for the housewife;
c.) The Student - sometimes it’s a college student who was smart enough to get all his/her classes on Tuesdays and Thursdays, sometimes it’s the high school student who’s skipping class, but you can always count a student in the audience. These often comes in pairs;
d.) The Professional - you can always count on at least one “9-5er” showing up for the mid-day movie. Maybe he’s got the day off, maybe he doesn’t, but he’s there regardless. My attention today rests here.


“Fantastic Mr. Fox” is the latest film from director Wes Anderson, maker of such oddball comedies as “The Royal Tenenbaums” and “Rushmore.” Based on a story by famed children’s author Roald Dahl, “Mr. Fox” is the tale of a talking Fox, his fox family, and his animal friends. Mr. Fox is a thief by trade and a darn good one. He steals chickens, apple cider, and turkeys from human villains Boggis, Bunce, and Bean. After almost getting caught, he promises his wife he won’t steak again. However, as he enters the twilight of his life (he is seven fox years old, you know), he returns to his old ways and plots a great caper that throws his life and the life of all those around him into disarray.

As is the case with all Anderson films, “Fox” is an ensemble that is built on the strength of all characters involved. The voice work here is exquisite. Anderson assembled the usual suspects, such as Owen Wilson, Jason Schwartzman, Bill Murray, and added more A-list talent to the equation. George Clooney and Meryl Streep provide the voices for Mr. and Mrs. Fox and both bring the exact kind of quality you would expect. Clooney in particular makes you feel as if he is the only guy who could voice Mr. Fox, just as he does with every role he takes. The script is witty, intelligent, and original. It’s never “I nearly died laughing” with Anderson but “Mr. Fox” delivers fun and entertaining scenes throughout. The real attention grabber, however, is the use of stop motion animation. It was a daring move for Anderson to film this way and a huge departure from what he’s done in the past. The film is, for lack of a better term, fantastic to the eye. Each shot is as dynamic as the one before. The longer the movie ran, the more I found myself riveted to what played out on the screen. This was a daring move that paid off.

I’ve never been Wes Anderson’s biggest fan. I’ve found all of his films to be incredibly promising but ultimately incomplete. There have always been too many scenes that felt like they belonged only in a director’s cut that distracted from the overall point of his films. Unlike most others, I actually liked his latest release, “The Darjeeling Unlimited,” the most because I felt like it actually progressed from point A to point Z in the most direct route. It was a step forward from a filmmaking standpoint, even if the storyline wasn’t up to par. “Mr. Fox” takes that promise shown in “Tenenbaums” and “Rushmore” and adds the steps taken with “Darjeeling,” finally delivering a complete project.

But while I may not be Anderson’s biggest fan, the man has developed an amazing cult following. Which brings me back to The Professional. As I settled into my seat and the previews began to play, the last person into the theater was the day’s representation of The Professional. He snuck in wearing a suit and tie, bags under the eyes and a general attitude that said, “I kind of hate my life.” He came in nervous but when he sat down in the aisle in front of me, you could almost feel the tension rush out of the dude as the opening credits rolled. As the film progressed The Professional got more and more into the movie. At times we were the only two in the theater laughing at the witty banter between a fox and a badger. I figured him for an Anderson fan when he started chuckling over bits that only someone who’d seen his other films would appreciate, like he was in on a joke that the rest of us weren’t privy to. When “Mr. Fox” came to an end and the lights came on, The Professional was the first out of his seat. Back to the grind I assume. But there was a slight difference in him. A pep in the step, if you will.

I don’t know the guy’s story, though I could guess. I would bet he’s a twenty-something in a job he doesn’t like who feels like a sellout every time he looks in the mirror. He just had that air about him. On this day, however, he got to remember what life was like before we had to grow up. Maybe he got off early that day or maybe his boss thought he was on a sales call. Either way, he was there and the 87 minutes spent in Anderson-land were enough to get The Professional through the day. “Mr. Fox” was fun and bright throughout, a truly enjoyable work that served as a great distraction from the grown-up world. A-.

I still have Milk Duds stuck in my teeth,
Brian

Sick-Sick Day

Growing up I got sick all the time. Ear infections, throat issues, stomach bug, whatever, I always seemed to catch whatever was going around and I always seemed to get the worst case. I was quite the sickly kid. That extended until I started teaching. My first (and only) year in the classroom saw me set a world record for legitimate sick days. Those darn kids and their sicknesses. But when it was all said and done my immune system had finally manned up and gotten its act together. I never get sick-sick anymore. One year of teaching PE was to my immune system what our yellow Sun is to Superman. As such, I haven’t been to the doctor for an illness related issue in about four years.

Anyway, I finally did get sick-sick. I haven’t felt my best since Christmas. I guess I haven’t gotten enough rest and the crazy weather hasn’t helped much. You know how you can feel when you’re about to get sick? I’m a master at reading that feeling and just refusing to let myself get sick-sick. Not this time, however. It started with that ol’ sore throat and progressed to the sinus junk, the congestion, etc. finally coming to a head today with the fever and, my favorite, the body aches. I woke up this morning after having slept about two hours and I knew it was time. The over the counter stuff wasn’t going to cut it and I needed an antibiotic. I was going to have to go to the doctor.

My problem is I don’t have a doctor. I never get sick-sick, so why would I have a doctor? The last time I had to go to a doctor to get a wart removed, I went to my old family doctor. His botching of the procedure almost cost me the tip of my finger. (At least that’s how it went down in my head. I hate doctors.) Clearly I’m not going back there so I wound up back in the CareNow lobby. I’ve been to CareNow three times in the last year. I went once for a physical, once to have the above procedure rectified, and once with Lindsey when she had a dizzy spell. All three times I’ve exited and the first thing that came out of my mouth was, “I have GOT to find a real doctor.”

On paper, the CareNow concept is great. It’s pretty cheap, you can get in without an appointment, and you can even check in online, the greatest decision this company could ever make. But the experience is never good, at least not for me. The nurses are great, but I always feel like the doctor is either hung-over or got his medical degree from Kazakhstan. Today was no exception. I knew I had an upper respiratory infection, the nurse knew I had an upper respiratory infection, and the second nurse I spoke to later knew I had an upper respiratory infection. The doctor, however, would not accept an upper respiratory infection as the cause for my illness. He did a flu swab and ordered blood work. Then he told me a nurse would be down to take chest x-rays because, and I kid you not, even though my lungs were 100% clear, I could still have pneumonia. I questioned this move. He said I was going to end up paying my full $140 co-pay anyway, might as well be safe. All I wanted was some antibiotics.

20 minutes later that second nurse I mentioned came in to collect a blood sample. It should be noted that I am freaked out by needles, syringes, little finger clickers, or anything that can draw blood out of my body. When I was four, my doctor thought I had meningitis and I got to have that wonderful spinal tap done to me while at the same time a moronic nurse who looked like Sarah Jessica Parker in “Flight of the Navigator” failed seven times to get an IV into my arm. I’m still kind of messed up by this. Anyway, I looked away and she did her thing, only apparently I have super human blood that refuses to come out upon command. She had to squeeze my finger approximately 25 times (not kidding) before she could fill her little vial. I felt like Seymour Krelborn giving blood to Audrey II. (Yeah, that’s right, I went with back-to-back 80’s movie references.) I nearly blacked out because I am a total girl with blood stuff and had to take a minute before I could get the x-rays taken care of.

Another 30 minutes later and the doctor shows back up with the shocking news that I had neither the flu nor pneumonia and it was, “probably just an upper respiratory infection.” He offered me a steroid shot “just to be safe” and I told him I would likely jab him in the eye if he tried to get another needle into me today. He handed me my scripts and I got the heck out of dodge before he tried to make me turn my head and cough.

I dropped the prescriptions off at Walgreens and went across the street to get some juice. Apparently I make horrible, horrible purchasing decisions when I’m sick. These are the items I bought at Kroger: apple juice, orange juice, Lay’s potato chips, Reese’s Peanut Butter Cups, some sort of apple turnover, “Texas Style Cinnamon Rolls” (packed in stay fresh pouches!), and a box of Cap’n Crunch Berries. I still don’t know why I got that last one. I was a carton of Marlboro Reds away from being arrested for holding up a 7-11. At the end of the day, I was short a little blood, totally stocked up on Cap’n Crunch, and determined to find a legit doctor before the next time this happens.

My finger has a heart beat,
Brian

"Avatar"

I hate “Titanic.” HATE it. I’m not against the Chick Flick or the romance movie in general. Those movies have their place and some of them I actually quite like. Heck, I would probably name at least two Chick Flicks (“When Harry Met Sally” and “Serendipity”) on my list of all time favorites. So that’s not my problem with “Titanic.” My problem is that James Cameron turned it into a romance in the first place. I was obsessed with the story of the Titanic as a kid. There was a book in my school library about the Titanic and I bet I checked it out once or twice a month. So you can imagine how excited the 13 year old version of myself was when he learned there was a movie about the Titanic and it was being made by the man who gave us “Terminator” and “Aliens,” only to find out it was a romance starring Leonardo Dicaprio. That Cameron could turn one of the most fascinating stories in history into a romance still makes me angry. Clearly it was the right choice considering how much money it made. But still, the sting of having a favorite childhood story ripped away and replaced with some old lady throwing a dumb diamond into the ocean is ever present. Boo.

And so it was with great fear and trepidation that I entered a theater for a 3-D showing of Cameron’s latest, “Avatar.” The movie follows wheelchair-bound Marine Jack Sully and his pals as he explores an alien world known as Pandora. Sully is entrusted with endearing himself to the indigenous people of Pandora, called the Na’vi. To do this, Sully (along with several others) essentially transfers his mind into the body of an Avatar, a combination of Na’vi and human DNA that looks like a Na’vi. Sully quickly finds himself caught between the love for the alien planet he is quickly developing and the mission he has been charged with by the military. Inevitably the two worlds clash and he is forced to choose which side he is really on.

Since I’ve bored you with my tale of why I hate “Titanic,” I’m going to skip right to the point: I loved this movie. It is a magnificent piece of work that certainly makes you understand why it took Cameron so long to bring his vision to the screen. “Avatar” is expertly crafted from start to finish and it is the single most beautiful and stunning film I have seen in a long, long time. Not a single scene is wasted, which is no small feat considering its 160 minute run time. In fact I think the case could be made for an extra 20 or 30 minutes of development (looking forward to the director’s cut). The world, the creatures, and the weaponry are all spectacular and the effects are amazing. And whereas I usually find 3-D to be a distraction at best, for this movie it does nothing but add to the spectacle. Cameron uses the 3-D technology, along with the tremendous sound editing, to bring you into the world of Pandora rather than going the standard route of bringing the action out to you. This to me makes a huge difference not only from an enjoyment standpoint but also in regards to respectability. No matter how good a movie this turned out to be, if Cameron packed it with cheesy shots designed to do nothing more than show off 3-D, there is no way it would get the critical respect it has thus far received.

It should be noted that, while he is a great director, Cameron isn’t a great writer. The actors in “Avatar” do an admirable job and at times the cast, Zoe Saldana in particular, step up as the driving force behind the movie. But they aren’t asked to do that much. As far as the story goes, there isn’t much that hasn’t been told before. One review I read criticized Cameron for taking the best parts of his other movies and throwing them altogether for “Avatar.” To that I say, so what? Sure, the story isn’t all that original but truth be told, it’s hard to come up with something that hasn’t been done before in some way or another. We’re approaching 100 years of the spoken word in film and complete originality is hard to produce. I have always been of the opinion that it doesn’t really matter if you’re retelling parts of a story as long as you’re retelling it well. And this story, while secondary to the stunning visuals, is well told.

I love movies. Whether in the theater or on Blu-Ray/DVD, I see a lot of films every year. Because of that, sometimes I get a little jaded and get caught up in catching as many reasonably interesting movies as I can. Sometimes even good movies start to blend together for me. But there are a few movies that I wish I could see again for the first time. “Star Wars” is one. “Jurassic Park” is another. “Avatar” now takes a prominent place on that list. I saw this movie almost a month ago now and I have thought about it over and over ever since. It is a landmark achievement in film, the kind of movie that you have to believe will have a ripple effect on the rest of the industry. Maybe more importantly, “Avatar” made me feel like a kid again, taking in a fantastic world that I truly did not want to see end when my 160 minutes was up. It reminds me of the magic and the majesty of the silver screen in a way that I haven’t experienced in many years. A+.

I’m still mad about “Titanic,”
Brian

Top 10 Most Anticipated Movies of 2010

My annual Movie Rankings column is about ready to go, but I've got to catch two of this week's Blu-ray releases before I'll feel like I have a good handle on the year. In the meantime, after an exhaustive search, I've put together a list of my top 10 Most Anticipated Movies of 2010. All around it seems like we're in for a pretty average year at the box office and certainly not one that is up to the standard of 2009, which was for me a very strong year for film. Yet as always there are some highlights.

10. The Book of Eli (January 15)
I'm purposely trying not to know much about this before I see it. What I do know is Denzel has never done a straight action/fighting movie like this before and I'm excited to see it. And it doesn't get any better than Gary Oldman in the role of the villain.


9. Shutter Island (February 19)
I was a lot more excited about this Scorsese pic when it was supposed to come out last November. The newly cut second trailer is making it seem like it's going to be closer to a horror movie than I want it to be. Still, pedigree is a big thing and "Shutter" has that along with an insanely intriguing story line.

8. Stone (May)
As you will be able to tell from my list, my movie choices are often actor-driven. Edward Norton plus a potential career saving turn for Robert DeNiro is enough to get me in the theater, even if I'm not really sure what this is all about.

7. Alice in Wonderland (March 5)
2009 was the year of the visually stunning film ("Avatar," "The Road," "Fantastic Mr. Fox") and "Alice" looks to follow that up this year. Tim Burton tends to polarize audiences: you love him or you hate him. I guess I'm one of the few who can pick and choose depending on the project. This one looks fascinating.

6. Green Zone (March 12)
Matt Damon is my favorite actor right now and a guy who delivers time and time again. Seriously, the last poor movie he took a starring turn in was "Brothers Grimm" and even that you could see why he took the role. Pair him with "Bourne" director Paul Greengrass and I'm there.

5. Inception (July 16)
Of all the movies on the list, this is the one that I know the least about. The trailer doesn't really tell me much of anything. But it looks amazing and director Chris Nolan has proven to be a trustworthy name many times over even before his success with the "Batman" reboot.

4. Robin Hood (May 14)
What can I say, I love the Robin Hood story and pretty much every film version. I love the Errol Flynn film, the one with Costner is a guilty pleasure, and the Disney cartoon is my favorite Disney movie of all time. So the story line alone is enough to get me interested. Adding in Ridley Scott and his best buddy Russell Crowe is just overkill.

3. Iron Man 2 (May 7)
The first "Iron Man" was slightly surprising in its awesomeness and that surprise factor has me a little worried about the sequel. It's really easy to fill a sequel with a ton of big names (Mickey Rourke, Scarlett Johansson, Sam Rockwell) and get lazy on the storyline (see: "Ocean's 12"). Still, if Damon is my favorite actor at the moment, Downey is right up there and the first "Iron Man" was incredible.

2. Toy Story 3 (June 18)
Pixar made its glorious debut 15 years ago with the first "Toy Story." I'm a huge Pixar fan and I have a deep attachment to the "Toy Story" movies.

1. Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 1 (November 19)
Ya, I'm a nerd, what about it? The Harry Potter books are phenomenal and the movies are tremendously fun for me. I have enjoyed the Harry Potter world so much that, as much as I look forward to its on-screen conclusion, I will be sad to see it come to an end.

No Will Smith movie this year,
Brian

Conan to Leave NBC

Regardless of how you feel about Conan O'brien, the guy has a rabid, faithful, cult following that includes this writer. After a few days of questions, the Tonight Show host today told NBC he will not accept a move to 12:05 am. NBC, currently ranked 4th out of the four major networks, has made one bad decision after another, ultimately leading to this situation which will only hurt the network further. I think I've got a full Conan column in me somewhere but I believe I'll wait to see where he ends up. What follows is his press release concerning his decision. As always, Mr. O'brien shows himself to be a classy guy in a business that doesn't often lend itself to such characteristics.

"People of Earth:

In the last few days, I’ve been getting a lot of sympathy calls, and I want to start by making it clear that no one should waste a second feeling sorry for me. For 17 years, I’ve been getting paid to do what I love most and, in a world with real problems, I’ve been absurdly lucky. That said, I’ve been suddenly put in a very public predicament and my bosses are demanding an immediate decision.

Six years ago, I signed a contract with NBC to take over “The Tonight Show” in June of 2009. Like a lot of us, I grew up watching Johnny Carson every night and the chance to one day sit in that chair has meant everything to me. I worked long and hard to get that opportunity, passed up far more lucrative offers, and since 2004, I have spent literally hundreds of hours thinking of ways to extend the franchise long into the future. It was my mistaken belief that, like my predecessor, I would have the benefit of some time and, just as important, some degree of ratings support from the prime-time schedule. Building a lasting audience at 11:30 is impossible without both.

But sadly, we were never given that chance. After only seven months, with my “Tonight Show” in its infancy, NBC has decided to react to their terrible difficulties in prime time by making a change in their long-established late night schedule.

Last Thursday, NBC executives told me they intended to move the “Tonight Show” to 12:05 to accommodate the “Jay Leno Show” at 11:35. For 60 years, the “Tonight Show” has aired immediately following the late local news. I sincerely believe that delaying the “Tonight Show” into the next day to accommodate another comedy program will seriously damage what I consider to be the greatest franchise in the history of broadcasting. The “Tonight Show” at 12:05 simply isn’t the “Tonight Show.” Also, if I accept this move I will be knocking the “Late Night” show, which I inherited from David Letterman and passed on to Jimmy Fallon, out of its long-held time slot. That would hurt the other NBC franchise that I love, and it would be unfair to Jimmy.

So it has come to this: I cannot express in words how much I enjoy hosting this program and what an enormous personal disappointment it is for me to consider losing it. My staff and I have worked unbelievably hard, and we are very proud of our contribution to the legacy of “The Tonight Show.” But I cannot participate in what I honestly believe is its destruction. Some people will make the argument that with DVRs and the Internet, a time slot doesn’t matter. But with the “Tonight Show,” I believe nothing could matter more.

There has been speculation about my going to another network but, to set the record straight, I currently have no other offer and honestly have no idea what happens next. My hope is that NBC and I can resolve this quickly so that my staff, crew, and I can do a show we can be proud of, for a company that values our work.

Have a great day and, for the record, I am truly sorry about my hair; it’s always been that way.

Yours,
Conan"

I already miss you Coco,
Brian

"Invictus"

I know a lot about sports. I know a lot about a lot of different sports. I know the most about basketball, followed by football, followed by some combination of baseball, tennis, soccer, and hockey, depending on the situation. I know a bit about ping pong and billiards, if you consider those to be sports. I know more than I’d like to admit about gymnastics thanks to the tremendous crush I had on Dominique Moceanu as a kid. I even know a thing or two about cricket due to a paper I had to write in college. I do not, however, know a lot about rugby. I vaguely understand the concepts (one of which appears to be, “Don’t die”) and the scoring is similar to football. But prior to Saturday, if you asked this recreation director to set up an impromptu game of rugby, the outcome would have likely been quite disappointing. (Unless, of course, you yourself didn’t know a lot about rugby in which case it might turn into quite a fun game, who knows.) I know a bit more about it now.

“Invictus” is the true-life tale of the South African Springboks rugby team that won the sport’s World Cup in 1995. Well, sort of. Ostensibly I think it’s about the rugby team. And at points the rugby action takes to the forefront of the film. But really “Invictus” is about Nelson Mandela’s early presidential years and his use of the rugby team to unite a bitterly fractured nation, told in three acts. Act One centers around Mandela (played, of course, by Morgan Freeman) and his attempts to figure out how to do the job that has been set before him. The relationship that Mandela develops with Boks captain Francois Pienaar (Matt Damon) takes center stage for Act Two as the two serve as a bridge between their two cultures. And the sport of rugby is given its glorious stage during Act Three, as the underdog group of hardheads battles its way to a tremendously significant title. (I don’t feel bad, by the way, about spoiling the end of this movie. This event happened 15 years ago. I also don’t feel bad about telling you that Bruce Willis was dead for the entirety of “The Sixth Sense.” It’s been out there for a while now.)

The performances here are, as expected, quite strong. Freeman is one of the five or ten best actors we have going today and his pedigree shines through yet again. This was clearly a very personal role for Freeman, who initially got the ball rolling on the project and served as producer. He wraps himself into Mandela, as it were, capturing the man’s spirit and mannerisms in what is perhaps his best performance since “The Shawshank Redemption.” Likewise, Damon (probably my favorite actor these days), provides great support to Freeman’s undeniable leading man. Sure, Damon isn’t asked to do as much as he has been in the past, but he more than holds his own. I expect both to receive Oscar nominations in the upcoming weeks. In addition, director Clint Eastwood is masterful behind the camera. Look, I’m not a huge fan of Eastwood’s recent work. “Million Dollar Baby” is one of the most overrated films of the past decade and “Gran Torino” is really not good at all. But there’s no question that the guy knows what he’s doing, especially the way in which he makes the most out of very simple shots.

Perhaps the best part of this movie is the shrewd way in which the two stories (one of Mandela’s presidency, the other of the rugby team) are blended together. I don’t know who made this decision, whether it was Freeman, Eastwood, the studio, or some combination of the three, but it was a stroke of genius. Both of these stories are important and need to be told, but I’m not sure either could command an audience if told separately. Mandela has led an amazing life but his persona doesn’t exactly lend itself to fantastic storytelling. Act One of “Invictus” is great but borders on the boring. If the entire film had continued as it started, the audience would have been lost. At the same time, while the Springboks' improbable victory is a great story, I’m not sure you can package a rugby movie to the American movie-goer. By combining the two and focusing the story on how the two parts intertwine, Eastwood is able to shed some light on two stories that need to be told without risking the alienation of the crowds. (Though I guess box office figures would suggest no one wanted to see the film, anyway.)

I do not recommend “Invictus” if you’re looking for a sports movie. The rugby action has its moment and I personally picked up a bit of knowledge about the sport. But it’s far from being the focus of the film. I really don’t even consider this to be a sports movie. It isn’t like the sporting part of the movie serves only as a break from the rest of the action like, say, the very uncomfortable volleyball scene in “Top Gun.” It’s just not the intention of the film to be to rugby what “Hoosiers” is to basketball or what “Miracle” is to hockey. But the blend of these two huge historical stories is superb and the final product is excellent. A.

I typed “rubgy” instead of “rugby” about a billion times,
Brian