Top 10 of '10

And here it is, the inevitable end of the year list. But before I lay it out for you, it's time for a bit of reflection. This 'reflection' is mostly remembering how terrible this year's summer lineup was. 'Robin Hood', 'Prince of Persia', 'Iron Man 2', 'The Last Airbender', 'Clash of the Titans', 'Jonah Hex', just to name a few. Not to mention the drastic switch to 3D that took theaters by storm this year. And with all these movies converting to 3D, none (besides 'Tron', to a degree) have made the movie any better. The only case in which 3D worked was with 'Avatar', but it costs a whole lot more to get the multiple cameras and other equipment necessary to make a movie with 'Avatar' 3D. It makes me wonder if this cheap, 3D conversion will be able to entertain audiences for very much longer. All this said, the late Fall and Winter still brought a handful of future Oscar nominees and award winners from which I have selected the majority of my top 10. So here we go:

10. 'Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part I'

Warner Bros.

I think the majority of Potter fans can agree that the latest addition to the mega-blockbuster series is the best of the lot, so far. In 'Hallows' we get to see the characters as actual people like we've never seen them before. Instead of blinding and distracting the audience with unending magic and special effects, this film focused on the people and built on their personal struggles more than any of the other films. Not to mention it successfully brought on the darkness and creepiness needed to do the book justice. This is undoubtedly the best adaptation of the books so far and I can't wait for the sequel coming next Summer.

9. 'Scott Pilgrim vs. The World'

Universal Pictures

One of the most underrated movies of the year, 'Scott Pilgrim vs. The World' unites Michael Cera and a fabulous supporting cast with Edgar Wright, director of 'Hot Fuzz' and 'Shaun of the Dead' for a highly entertaining, hilarious adaptation of a comic series of the same name. It's hard to say why this film did so poorly at the box office considering the presence of Cera, the comic's following, and Wright's fan club. Still, it's out there on DVD now, and I feel very confident that anyone would enjoy it's surprisingly fun, cool action and Wright's masterful editing style and quirky, sarcastic comedy that blends perfectly with the comic book-ish style.

Review: The King's Speech

The Weinstein Company

Isn't this a great picture? Love it. And it sets the tone for much of the movie. British actor Colin Firth plays Albert, the Duke of York (I think?) who inevitably becomes King George VI, as you can tell from the title. But with the dawn of technology such as radio and all that jazz, Kings are now expected to speak more in public and make broadcasts instead of just looking nice in a royal outfit. The only problem is 'Berty' (as his family calls him) has a terrible impediment of stuttering. He's seen all the greatest physicians but nothing has worked and he's frustrated to no end. "But he hasn't seen me", as Lionel Logue (Geoffrey Rush) tells Berty's sweet wife, Queen Elizabeth (Helena Bonham Carter).

Right, the board is set, the plot and it's struggle is clearly defined. Overall, it's a very simple movie. 'The King's Speech' has been advertised as that hifalutin (love that word), soaring, over dramatic, inevitable Oscar winner. But it's really nothing of the sort. It's quite modest, in fact. This has been the case with a number of critically acclaimed movies this year. Like 'True Grit', '127 Hours', 'The Fighter', and a number of others, there's nothing very outgoing or unusual about any of them. They're all solid movies in their own right, but not much more. 'Speech' is by no means left out.

Review: True Grit

Paramount Pictures

When the first trailer for this remake of the 1969 film starring John Wayne first premiered online, I had one question: how would the notorious directing duo Joel and Ethan Coen ('Fargo', 'No Country for Old Men', and many others) handle the style of a Western? Would they go for a more modern take similar to what they did with 'No Country'? Would it be a traditional Western? Or something in-between? Because as many of you may know, the Coens are not exactly known for normal movies. Everything they make has a signature quirk, and often darkness, to it. In my mind a remake that brought out the darkness and grisly violence of an old Western sounded promising. 

But when it came down to seeing it last night at midnight, I had to remind myself that expectations are everything. And in this case, I think expectations will rule your opinion of the Coen's take on 'True Grit' that ended up being a very traditional, comedic, even somewhat family-friendly Western that hearkens back to the days of John Wayne.

Review: The Fighter

Paramount Pictures

So many people groan at the phrase "based on a true story." I must admit, most of the time, it isn't a very good sign. It's a way for studios to try and attract a certain crowd who likes to know exactly what they're going to get. The biographies tend to be on the darker side and show the main character going through lots of tough times (and drugs) but usually coming back on top at the end. 90% of the time, "true story" means a crowd pleasing, happy ending for everyone.

And the most tried and true formula for this sort of story is the always popular, recurring sports drama. I have to say right here that I absolutely detest football, and most major-league sports films. 'Remember the Titans' is the only one I'll admit to liking. Other than that, I refuse. Sorry. Anyway, now boxing films, look no further than 'Rocky' for the epitome of a boxing movie. Then there's 'Cinderella Man', the Ron Howard directed 'true story' (again!) of a boxer during the depression played by Russell Crowe. I for one really enjoyed 'Cinderella Man' even though it's highly melodramatic, especially at the end. But 'The Fighter', is it just as formulaic and ho-hum as its many counter-parts?

Review: The Chronicles of Narnia: The Voyage of the Dawn Treader

Twentieth Century Fox

The 'Chronicles of Narnia' is a sad tale of the woes of poor-box office showings. 'The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe', the first of the C.S. Lewis series, had an opening weekend of $65.5 million and a total gross of nearly $292 million in the US. It was an impressive opening and seemed to be the beginning of better things to come and received mostly positive reviews, earning a 76% on Rotten Tomatoes. 'Prince Caspian', the second in the series, made $55 million opening weekend and a total gross of $141.6 million in the US while the total budget was $225 million. It was a fairly major upset, to say the least, and the 67% on RT didn't help either. It was at this point, when things were getting ready to go on 'Dawn Treader' that Disney dropped the series. For a while, it seemed Narnia could be lost forever. Then Fox picked it back up and fans breathed easy once again.

However, 'Dawn Treader' only made $24 million opening weekend. That's less than half of what 'Prince Caspian' made opening weekend, the movie that started the trouble for the franchise in the first place. To top it all off, 'Dawn Treader' has 49% on RT. It really is a very sad state of affairs, especially for me and families like mine who grew up reading the series and I for one think 'The Silver Chair', the next book, is the best of the lot. So what happened to Narnia? Why can't a PG rated, fantasy-action, family friendly movie draw an audience during a time of year when people are willing to see any movie for an excuse to get out and do something?

Review: Tron: Legacy

Walt Disney Pictures

What I find most fascinating about this movie and all it stands for is its marketing campaign. Who (besides some 30-year old cult fans) knows what 'Tron' even is? A nearly 30-year old live-action Disney movie with tacky special effects and an absurdly vague plot that wasn't even that popular. Hardly anyone in my generation has seen 'Tron' and if they think they know anything about it, they say it's about people playing inside a video game. But any of those 30-year old cult fans know that's not the entire story. Seriously, watch the old movie, it doesn't even bother trying to explain anything beyond the fact that Kevin Flynn (Jeff Bridges) has to beat this computer or something and win back his company, Encom, from some bad dude who stole it from him. It's a strangely dark and cerebral movie that wouldn't make sense to any kid these days.

So why the PG rating and acting like the first 'Tron' was a big deal when it wasn't? I actually took the time to watch the original with some friends for the sake of seeing 'Legacy' and maybe understanding it. But after seeing 'Legacy', I now understand that the first one really doesn't matter at all. All you need to know and can possibly understand is explained and anything else, like the original, is tossed out there as a bunch of mumbo-jumbo that doesn't make any sense, but none of that matters. This 'Tron' is so slick and dazzling that you could care less what the heck these Iso people are.

Review: 127 Hours

Fox Searchlight Pictures

Let's face it, everyone knows what's going to happen at the end of this movie. We've all heard the story of climber/biker/outdoors adventurer Aron Ralston (played by James Franco) at least once and know the guy got his arm stuck under a rock and after the amount of hours mentioned in the title finally decides to cut his arm off. Now how many of us can seriously say we'd be able to do that? The man had to first break his arm in such a way as to be sure the bone was completely broken in half because there was no way his completely dull knife was going to be able to cut through bone. He then proceeds to hack and saw away through tendons and at one point snipping the main nerve that runs through his arm *barf*. 

Knowing all this, why would seeing a movie recounting this horrific event sound appealing at all? For one, director Danny Boyle ('Slumdog Millionaire', '28 Days Later', 'Trainspotting') can do no wrong (most of the time). Secondly, seeing exactly how one would go about making a 94 minute film out of this was what got me to see it. It's one of those cases where one actor (Franco) has to entertain an audience and keep the story going all on his lonesome. 

Review: Black Swan

Fox Searchlight Pictures

I really like this picture. What does it tell us? That Natalie Portman is scary, yes, but also that this is more than a psychological thriller. 'Black Swan' is totally a horror movie. It sounds weird to say it because you naturally think of slashers and blood and guts, but trust me, this movie is far more unsettling and intense than any slasher film out there.

If you know anything about director Darren Aronofsky ('Requiem for a Dream', 'The Fountain', 'The Wrestler'), you know you're in for something that will most likely be dark and disturbing, but also highly stimulating. The cinematography was fantastic. I know many people think hand-held camera is a 'cop out' or overdone but it worked perfectly here; especially for capturing the dance scenes and Nina's (Portman) increasingly frantic state. In nearly every scene I braced myself for what jarring thing would happen next. This is primarily because of the fantastic story which follows Nina, a very talented but not very self-confident ballerina who tries out for and gets the part of the Swan Queen in the famous ballet Swan Lake. The instructor, Thomas (brilliantly played by creepy but commanding Vincent Cassel), applauds her portrayal of the Queen but keeps driving her on to be able to do the evil twin, the Black Swan, justice.

Review: The Tourist

Spyglass Entertainment

If you think this photo looks like something you might see in an advertisement for a travel agency, you're not alone. This entire film might as well be an advertisement for Italy (Venice, primarily). That said, it's rather lovely to watch at times because Angelina Jolie keeps up a track record of always looking "ravenous" (as Johnny Depp's character Frank puts it) against a backdrop of romantic canals, old buildings, and smashing lighting. Now THAT SAID, what else is there?

Not much. For one thing, Depp's character is very bland. Although some may argue that's done on purpose because he's suppose to be this 'normal' guy thrown into the middle of espionage and a case to bring a notorious money-launderer, Alexander Pierce, to justice. So why pick Depp to play a 'normal' person? Because as we all know, Depp never plays a 'normal' person, and seeing him attempt to do so doesn't feel very real. It's not that his acting isn't good, it's just that I wanted to see more from him. And as I said before, Jolie's Elise fulfills her purpose as the gorgeous, mysterious woman (and obvious love-interest for Depp). 

Review: The Warrior's Way

Relativity Media

The real question about this movie (which doesn't need any explanation with this picture: cowboys vs. ninjas, the end), is WHY did I see it? Even more, WHY am I even writing a review for a movie no one is going to see except for two awkward businessmen sitting behind us? Because I can.

Which is the same reason why I saw it in the first place. It also seems to be the same reason the studio used to justify making such a movie. I can't imagine how the writer walked up to the producers with this script and they were like "great! this will be awesome!" It probably has something to do with the director having a name no one can pronounce (Sngmoo?). Therefore, it must be another "Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon". Like every other Asian-martial arts movie out there. But not every Asian-martial arts movie out there is shot entirely on green-screen.