My Top 10 Films of 2008

*Note: The following is part of the continuing "10 FOR 10" series in celebration of ten years of Jeremy The Critic, in which my choices for the top 10 films of each year from 2006-2015 are revealed. Don't forget to check out my previous posts for 2006 and 2007. This installment will be focusing on 2008. Just a reminder that movies must have a U.S. release date of that particular year in order to qualify.

                                                                       2008

It's time to put 2008 to bed. If forced to rank, I'd probably name this the second weakest year covered in this series behind 2006. Like '07, I did compile a belated Top 10 list for this year, but very much unlike 07, a disappointed resignation accompanied my choices as I bemoaned their many flaws. Eight years later, few will be shocked at the films that made it, but may be taken aback somewhat at the order, which has changed considerably with time.

The Dark Knight, already an iffy choice for the top spot, loses that position here, dropping to a still respectable number 3. Let's face it: It has issues and the overabundance of superhero movies since has either hurt or helped its cause depending on whether you'd classify it as one. If nothing else, it'll always be remembered for Heath Ledger's posthumous Oscar-winning performance, which far surpasses the film it's in, which is still groundbreaking in many ways, arguably representing the high-water mark for director Christopher Nolan. But count me among the very few who prefer its sequel, The Dark Knight Rises.

Time has been kinder than expected to Best Picture winner Slumdog Millionaire, in hindsight one of the wiser Academy choices compared to what we've gotten since. Every time it comes on, it's tough to look away. Gran Torino holds steady as possibly the best late-era Eastwood entry while WALL-E becomes the first animated feature to make one of my lists, with few Pixar films measuring up to it since. Its existence as a weird political timepiece/character study and the great work from Josh Brolin and the entire cast surprisingly allows secures Oliver Stone's W. to sneak in.

David Fincher pops up again with Benjamin Button, but even with its incredible final hour I'd still have problems defending it as one of his stronger career efforts, much less worthy of the top spot. Revolutionary Road and Frost/Nixon are both so ridiculously underrated that I actually contemplated sliding them into the top two slots just to make a point. I resisted because neither really get over that hump that takes it to the next level. Still, I'd contend both are near-flawless, representing the best the decade has to offer (especially the latter, which grows more exciting on each rewatch). Roger Ebert's favorite film of the decade, Synecdoche, New York, is certainly challenging and ambitious enough to take top honors, but could I sit down and easily watch it right now? Probably not, as I'd have to be in the right frame of mind, but its standing here may as well be a vote of supreme respect for what director Charlie Kaufman and the late Philip Seymour Hoffman (in maybe his greatest role) accomplish.

But almost by process of elimination, it's The Wrestler for the win, a movie that's proven to hold the highest rewatch value for me despite its depressing subject matter and the fact that I initially thought Aronofsky's film arrived too late to open enough eyes to what actually goes on within the pro wrestling world. History has proven that theory wrong and as much as Mickey Rourke's tried (and largely succeeded) at squandering the goodwill of his comeback, there's no taking this performance away. It probably wouldn't my top ten or fifteen films of the decade, but doesn't need to. It just needed to be the best of 2008. Some runners-up that didn't make the list include In Bruges and Pineapple Express (both of which made my previous one) Wendy and Lucy, Son of Rambow, Rachel Gettting Married and The Visitor. Next up is 2009, where my crutch of referencing a previous list to inform these rankings falls by the wayside. From here on, the results get a bit crazier and more unpredictable.        


10. W.

"Stone paints (Bush) as an underachiever, full of self-doubt and burdened by expectations. In doing that, he sets the stage for the film’s most frightening realization: He’s just like us. And whether we want to admit it or not, there’s no guarantee we could have done a better job in the White House under similar circumstances. But more importantly, in being the first biopic to centered around a current sitting President’s legacy, we’re robbed of time, distance and historical context in examining the film, making for a fascinating character study." - 10/24/08


9. Gran Torino

"A lot of viewers had major problems with Eastwood treating racism and xenophobia as punch lines, which is completely missing the point. There are old, bitter bigots like Walt who toss around ethnic jabs for fun every day. And they think they're a riot. What Eastwood taps into with his performance (which if you look closer is a whole lot more than just growls and sneers) is that people like this are funny, just not in the way they believe themselves to be." - 5/22/09


8. WALL-E

"It helps that WALL-E, part Charlie Chaplin, part R2D2, is the most adorable onscreen creation since E.T. All the details of his personality and how they’re conveyed onscreen are amazing, like when he shakes uncontrollably and collapses himself into a box to hide when he’s frightened. We recognize his quirks, relate and empathize with him as if he were real, and the story becomes that much more involving because of it." - 7/10/08


7. Slumdog Millionaire

"The flashbacks span years with three different actors playing the characters at various points, tragic circumstances eventually separating them, until all paths lead to the moment Jamal appears on the show. As we’re given each question we’re also given the accompanying story behind it. They range from “Who invented the revolver?” to “Which historical figure is on the $100 bill?” The film constantly astonishes in how the answers show up in his life. One early query involving a Bollywood star, has a payoff that’s both touching, disgusting and hysterical all at the same time. We know the ending but it doesn’t matter. What matters is how Jamal gets to it, and that’s what kept my mouth open in amazement the entire time." - 12/19/08


6. The Curious Case of Benjamin Button

"An accident befalls a character and Fincher flashes back, showing us all the little, seemingly meaningless events that had to fall perfectly into place for that event to occur. Had one of those tiny circumstances not happened, there's no accident and the paths of those involved would have been considerably altered. Life is a series of windows, opening and closing at very specific times, which can be a source of both joy and unbearable sadness. We have control over it…and we don’t. That’s life, and this film is rich with every little detail of it." - 2/20/09


5. Frost/Nixon

"After a while we realize that Nixon’s obsession with “beating” Frost has more to do with him actually wanting to be him. Beyond simply being jealous of his youth and success, in Frost he sees the man he could have been if only he had the people skills. His fixation on every detail of the interviewer's life, from his shoes to his girlfriend, suggest what in Nixon’s personality really caused the Watergate break-in and why he so sloppily covered it up. For Nixon, he and Frost are really two sides of the same coin. Both have accomplished much in their given fields, with neither being taken seriously or respected in the slightest." - 2/12/09


4. Revolutionary Road

"Fans of Titanic who waited over a decade to see the re-teaming of Kate and Leo will probably want to hang themselves by the time the final credits roll. This is not an epic romance, or even a romance at all. Despite the fact it was misleadingly marketed as Titanic 2, there isn't a single romantic element in it. It's closer to a horror movie. Think Pleasantville meets Rosemary's Baby with a side helping of Mad Men thrown in for good measure." - 6/7/09


3. The Dark Knight

"While played by Ledger as a sick hybrid of Clockwork Orange's Alex and Sid Vicious of The Sex Pistols, the Joker still bares no resemblance to any villain previously committed to film. It's truly the definitive portrayal of this iconic character, with the actor making Cesar Romero and even Jack Nicholson look like clowns hired for a children's birthday party. Every moment he's on screen is pure terror and Nolan is smart enough to know the right dose of screen time to give him." - 7/20/08


2. Synecdoche, New York

"Watching, you might be reminded of more films exploring similar themes of mortality, human existence, forgiveness, love, and regret in very unconventional ways. But none like this. My mind immediately turned, in either method or execution, to pictures like Vanilla Sky, Magnolia, Adaptation, Stranger Than Fiction and I Heart Huckabees.  It shares its dark humor with Huckabees, as well a similarly whimsical John Brion score, but  Like Nicolas Cage's Kaufman doppelganger in Adaptation, Caden seems to represent the filmmakers' perception of himself and his failures.  This introduces an intriguing question. Can you criticize Kaufman for self-indulgence when the film is actually ABOUT a director's self-indulgence and how it destroys him?" - 3/11/09


1. The Wrestler

" This isn’t a feel-good movie about redemption, overcoming the odds or even winning the big match. If pushed for comparisons, it comes closest in tone to the gritty Raging Bull, digging so deep and pulling so few punches that the professional wrestling industry as a whole had no choice but to disown it. The accolades and superlatives for that accomplishment belong to Aronofsky, and especially Mickey Rourke, drawing on a well-documented lifetime of pain and suffering to give a performance for the ages." - 1/25/09

Top 10 Films of 2008
1. The Wrestler (dir. Darren Aronofsky)
2. Synecdoche, New York (dir. Charlie Kaufman)
3. The Dark Knight (dir. Christopher Nolan)
4. Revolutionary Road (dir. Sam Mendes)
5. Frost/Nixon (dir. Ron Howard)
6. The Curious Case of Benjamin Button (dir. David Fincher)
7. Slumdog Millionaire (dir. Dannny Boyle)
8. WALL-E (dir. Andrew Stanton)
9. Gran Torino (dir. Clint Eastwood)
10. W. (dir. Oliver Stone)

The Dark Knight Rises

Director: Christopher Nolan
Starring: Christian Bale, Tom Hardy, Anne Hathaway, Joseph Gordon-Levitt, Gary Oldman, Michael Caine, Marion Cotillard, Morgan Freeman, Matthew Modine, Nestor Carbonell, Juno Temple, Ben Mendelsohn, Brett Cullen
Running Time: 165 min.
Rating: PG-13

★★★★ (out of ★★★★)

So, here we are again. It's been four years since the release of The Dark Knight, but it definitely seems much longer. Re-watching it again recently I was surprised how poorly it's held up and how on target my original complaints were. They only loom larger now. Poor editing choices, pacing problems, cringe-worthy dialogue, a poorly written love interest and a third act mess. And it was still pretty great. Much it saved, or at least greatly covered, by the late Heath Ledger's unforgettable Oscar-winning performance. It really was the rare case of one actor rescuing an entire film and a lesson in the danger of heightened expectations.

Now, with the arrival of The Dark Knight Rises comes the closing chapter in Christopher Nolan's Batman trilogy, and another instance where it's difficult to approach a Batman film without seeing it through the prism of a real-life tragedy. At least for a while. We can only hope that doesn't last, because very little of what occurs in this final installment bares little resemblance to a reality we know. And what a relief. This is escapism at its finest. It's not only by far the strongest film in the series, but Nolan's grand-scale masterpiece and the movie everyone insists its predecessor is. He takes the gloves off, raising the stakes and escalating the mayhem. Knowing this is the end frees him up to anything, and boy does he take full advantage.

A palpable sense of fear and tension comes from sensing everything's up for grabs and anything can happen. And it mostly does. There seems to be no rules, but within that framework Nolan still manages to create something structurally sound and airtight, free of filler and flaws. Nearly three hours breeze by without a minute wasted. Of course, there's no performance like Ledger's, but there shouldn't be. In fact, it wouldn't even fit here. What's delivered instead is a more ambitious threat both terrifyingly physical and deliberately planned, as well as two tour-de-force supporting turns that steal the film outright. The results on screen don't lie. But the real story isn't how much better this is than Nolan's previous Batman outings, or anything else in the genre. It's that it isn't even close.

Revealing anything is probably giving away too much, so it's best to tread lightly when discussing the plot, which is as multi-layered as The Dark Knight, but more focused, with much of its thematic content calling back to Batman Begins. Eight years have passed since Batman took the fall for District Attorney Harvey Dent's death and a crippled, bearded, Howard Hughes-like Bruce Wayne (Christian Bale) remains secluded in his mansion, even as trusted butler Alfred (Michael Caine) unsuccessfully attempts to coax him out of seclusion. Wayne Enterprises is crumbling after a failed investment in Miranda Tate's (Marion Cotillard) energy project while Commissioner Jim Gordon (Gary Oldman) grows tired of living the lie that inspired the Dent Act, a bill that's cleaned up crime and restored peace to Gotham City. At least temporarily.

Enter Bane (Tom Hardy), a masked mercenary with an intricate, carefully orchestrated plan to gain control of the city and instigate a revolution, restoring power to the people. With support from Gordon and most of the Gotham Police, including rookie detective John Blake (Joseph Gordon-Levitt), Batman/Bruce Wayne is drawn out of retirement. But he must also contend with the arrival of cat burglar Selina Kyle (Anne Hathaway), whose own motivations may or may not include helping him.  

From the exciting opening hijack scene revealing Bane, the film grabs hold and doesn't let go. Sounding like a Scottish Darth Vader, talking and breathing heavily through his life-sustaining gas mask, he's a horrifying presence as much for his oratory delivery as his freakish, hulking physique. All the complaints about his voice being unintelligible are unfounded and the few times I did had to concentrate on what he was saying was well worth it since its so hypnotically creepy. You actually look forward to his soliloquies about the troubles of Gotham and hang on every word, which is a good thing considering he lectures a lot.  Beyond that, the physicality Tom Hardy brings to the role is astounding, making his fights with Batman the most intense the series has seen. There's a feeling he could literally die at this man's hands. Brilliantly skirting the line between comic book adversary and reality inspired cult leader, he's true enough to be believable in both worlds, but successfully functions as both in Nolan's.

Bane's motivations aren't outright political or socioeconomic, nor are his actions (most notably an attack on Gotham's stock exchange) meant as some kind of endorsement or condemnation of the Occupy movement. The film isn't a social commentary. It's about Batman. And this may be the first Batman film that really is. Or rather, it's more about Bruce Wayne. The line between the two is fuzzier than ever in this installment, if not eliminated entirely. As a result Nolan plays fast and loose with Batman's identity, finally freed from the constrictions of having to "hide it," making Bale's performance more compelling as a result. The two personas are so inseparable that when a major character finally pieces the two together he feels out of the loop and the last to get the memo. Bale spends his least amount of time in the Bat suit, which feels right and means more when he's eventually back in it. That gravely voice is still there, but for some reason it bothered me less this time, either just because he isn't under the cowl as much or there's too much else going on to care. The movie is literally it's title, and that focus results in Bale's best work in the role yet.

Gotham City is also for the first time becomes a living, breathing character and fleshed out as much more than merely an action setting. This is a story that feels epic in scale, more so when Bane's plan starts to come to fruition and we head into the exhilarating final act, which contains a pair of shocking, game-changing twists. The city is literally at war with itself but the movie never feels like its playing in standard action territory because these sequences are seamlessly presented with minimal CGI, and the story stakes feel so high. Unlike The Dark Knight, nearly all of that action takes place in broad daylight so we can actually see what's happening and the camera isn't shaking, which makes for a notable improvement in presentation.  It might also mark the first time a nuclear bomb is used in a movie in a way that doesn't feel contrived or ridiculous.

Nolan's script opens up the entire city and pushes every important supporting character to center stage alongside Batman. It could have easily felt like an Inception reunion with so many cast members from that film on board, but it doesn't because each is plugged into wildly different supporting roles that help piece together the ambitious narrative. Morgan Freeman's Lucius Fox probably has the least to do this time around while Michael Caine gets some of his most emotional moments in as Alfred. Despite being laid up in a hospital bed for nearly half the film, Oldman still manages to be as much of a force as Jim Gordon, this time eaten up with regret. And taking the requisite Eric Roberts/Tom Berenger veteran character comeback role in a Nolan movie, Matthew Modine turns in exceptionally solid work as a clueless, but power-hungry Deputy Commissioner Foley. 

If the Two-Face material felt shoehorned into the last act of the last film, than this one represents the most successful integration of two villains yet, if you want to classify Selina Kyle as a villain. Bane doesn't care about the haves or the have nots, the one percenters, or the rich getting richer, but Selina does and let's Bruce Wayne know about it. Yes, it's true she isn't referred to as "Catwoman"  by anyone during the course of the film which makes perfect sense since it wouldn't fly in this context. Of all the villains in the pantheon, Nolan was supposedly most resistant to incorporating this character into his grittier, more grounded universe, and it's hard to blame him. Michelle Pfeiffer's performance in Batman Returns, falsely held up as the gold standard, may have been appropriate for that film, but the interpretation is campy beyond belief, and that's coming from someone who loves the classic 60's TV series.

As the trailers have hinted, Anne Hathaway absolutely knocks it out of the park, delivering the definitive interpretation of the character by making her a believable human being with real motivations. Devastatingly sexy and lethally dangerous, Selina's damaged goods who might have past the point of redemption and I loved how the usually super-expressive Hathaway's eyes just seem to go dead. There's legitimate doubt which side she's on that lasts until practically the final scene, and is only enhanced by Hathaway playing Selina as if she might not know either. And I love the catsuit, which actually seems like a functional uniform for her job rather than a costume. She's also given just the right amount of screen time to make the necessary impact. Much like Ledger, in hindsight it seems impossible anyone would think she was miscast or another actress could have done this better. And I've thought it too. We couldn't have been more wrong.

Marion Cotillard's Miranda Tate is thankfully no Rachel Dawes, and along with Selina Kyle, finally disproves the allegation that Nolan is incapable of writing strong female characters.Calling Hathaway's performance the picture's strongest is high praise, especially considering Joseph Gordon-Levitt almost walks away with it. Despite what you may have heard, his part as Gotham cop John Blake is so huge in both camera time and importance that you may as well consider him a co-lead alongside Bale. As the only hopeful, idealistic cop left amidst a sea of corruption, he seems to understand Bruce Wayne in ways no one else can, and Levitt plays him as the ultimate good guy, struggling to hold on to his values even as his city collapses around him. The movie's as much about him as it is Batman.

There comes this point in the picture when Nolan does something we didn't think he'd ever do, that he swore he'd never do, and even Christian Bale said he better not even try. But somehow he pulls it off, and without us even realizing he did until it's over. It's surprising just how powerful this ending is. Talk about sticking the landing. It feels like the cherry on top of a sundae, bringing the saga circle and confirming that Nolan hasn't been overpraised for his resuscitation of a franchise that was left for dead before 2005's Batman Begins. Even when the execution had holes, his overall vision for the trilogy was airtight. So now the strongest film gets a somewhat divisive reaction. Why?  Because Ledger's not in it?

The Dark Knight Rises, besides actually being fun, feels like The Empire Strikes Back of the series, fulfilling all its lofty ambitions while still leaving us wanting more. Nolan could easily continue, but he's right to go out on top. Saving the best for last, he's come the closest to shaking the stigma associated with comic book movies by using its origins as a jumping-off point to something bigger. His work's done, but the beauty of the Batman franchise has always been how open it is to wildly different interpretations. Just pity the poor director who has to follow this one.

Frequently Asked Movie Reviewing Questions

I'm approaching my fourth year reviewing, which is, well, kind of weird, and I'm still not quite sure what to even think about that. But I do know I have my readers to thank for hanging with me for so long. In honor of that I've decided to do something a little different and pull back the curtain. With the decade in movies coming to a close this seemed as good a time as any to take a breather and talk about my approach and feelings on reviewing. I tried to answer the following questions as honestly as I could, which wasn't too hard since I came up with all of them myself, but hopefully you'll be surprised by at least some of the answers.

When and why did you start reviewing movies?
I always loved writing and enjoyed watching movies but it never really occurred to me to combine the two. While on vacation in '06 I was stuck in a hotel room with a cold and while watching a couple of movies got the idea to just scribble down a couple of reviews on a piece of paper out of pure boredom. Then I started posting online. What's so funny is I never had any intention or desire to write reviews. I'm still not exactly sure how it happened and part of me thinks I'm doing it just because I'm addicted. But there's that other part that thinks I'm lucky to have a hobby I actually enjoy.

Ever think about stopping?
I always think every review is my last, and treat it like it is. And after 2008 I really thought I was done because that was just a miserable year for movies that sucked nearly everything out of me. But the great thing is whenever I seem to lose interest some movie always seems to comes along or I read something on movies that completely reignites my passion for doing it.

How do you choose which movies to review?
More selectively than I did in the past that's for sure. Before, I tried to review as much as I could regardless of whether I wanted to see it or not. That was problematic for a number of reasons, chief of which it drained my enthusiasm. Now I realize quality is more important than quantity and I review movies I want to see or I think will make an interesting review. As you can tell though, I try to hit all the major releases releases and stay clear of movies no one's ever heard of (with a few exceptions). I do this primarily for me, but make no mistake about it, I care a lot about whether people and read and enjoy the reviews. If I didn't, I probably shouldn't be doing it.

Does reviewing the movies sometimes hurt your enjoyment as a fan?
Absolutely it can, but that really depends on the film. I like to think there's a "Critic" mode and a "Fan" mode and I can shut either on or off at will, but the reality is they often uncomfortably overlap.

Are you against reading other reviews before you watch or review a film?
No, not at all. The only reason I'd ever stay clear from a review before I see a film is if it gives away key plot details I don't want to know about or for some reason I want to go in fresh. Most of the time though I find it just further informs my review to read others' takes on it and think it's a joke that anyone would think I'm just reacting to others' reactions of the movie.

I think the public's response to a movie is INCREDIBLY RELEVANT, especially if it forces you to look closer at certain aspects of the film. How could I possibly talk about Juno without bringing up the backlash against it? Or review Knowing without analyzing how Roger Ebert could have given it four stars? I could, but there would be a giant pink elephant in the room and the reviews wouldn't be nearly as interesting. I'm of the belief that reading and considering other viewpoints, whether to agree or shoot them down, can only make the piece more interesting.

Which critics (if any) do you read?
Roger Ebert is a big one and while many have accused him of slipping in recent years I still think his passion and insight is unmatched. Kim Morgan, who's actually more of an essayist, which isn't to say she's not an awesome critic and probably one of the most knowledgeable and passionate writers out there. I also read James Berardinelli, whose opinions I almost always disagree with and name I always misspell, but I appreciate his no-nonsense, analytical approach. I read too many bloggers to name without forgetting anyone, many of whom are better than the "professionals." Those are my favorites but usually I try to read as many reviews on a film as I can if I'm interested in it.

How do you feel about print criticism being essentially left for dead?
I feel bad for people who work at magazines and newspapers losing their jobs. The bottom line is that times have changed and film criticism in general just isn't as relevant to the public as it once was, which is a shame. Anyone can go online and write something, which sucks for people who made their living doing that. Then again, on the bright side...anyone can go online and write something.

How do you feel about Facebook, MySpace and Twitter?
I started reviewing movies on MySpace in 2006 and then when all the action moved to Facebook I followed it because it was the smart thing to do. It's still growing on me but I'm at least grateful it's brought (slightly) more traffic to the site. I actually like the concept of Twitter much more because it enables you to follow things, people and topics that interest you at a relatively quick pace.

What are your favorite movie genres?
Longtime readers and probably even more newer ones already know the answer to this one. My favorites are sci-fi, coming-of-age films, mystery/suspense, bio-pics, romantic comedies (surprisingly) and even though it's more of a sub-genre, dysfunctional suburban dramas (like The Ice Storm or American Beauty) People tend to think I'm a huge fan of horror but that's not completely true as I can usually only take it in small doses and find that the genre is full of too much junk to be ranked as a favorite of mine. I probably like analyzing those films more than actually watching them, which could be said of the superhero genre as well. That said, both have really grown on me since I've started doing this.

Least Favorite Genres?
Genres I'm less inclined to like are mob/gangster pictures, war/espionage films, musicals, fantasy films (with wizards, goblins, elves and such) and sports movies. That's not saying it's impossible for me to like any of those films or I intentionally avoid them, just that they have a much rougher road to travel to gain my favor. I find when reviewing it's better to honestly embrace my predisposed bias or personal preference and just work with it. We all have them. I like to think that I'm very fair and if a movie's good enough it should have no problem overcoming the odds. Apocalypse Now, Full Metal Jacket, The Karate Kid and more recently, but to lesser extent, The Hurt Locker, We Are Marshall and Across The Universe were all able to. I couldn't have been any less interested in seeing Atonement but was surprised just how much I liked it.

Which movie(s) did you most enjoy reviewing?
Southland Tales would really have to be up there. A perfect storm converged with that one. My favorite genre, a dream cast and an opportunity to passionately defend a movie I thought was unfairly maligned. It's rare when the experience of watching a film and reviewing it become one in the same but that's what happened there. I also enjoyed reviewing The Dark Knight probably more than I enjoyed watching it. I'm Not There was a blast to write on as well since it was a biopic (if you could even call it that) on a subject I was actually deeply interested in. Not to mention it was completely insane so it was even more up my alley. And even though it's a TV series, I loved writing about Veronica Mars. It's unusual that I dip into TV for a review so that I did for that (and all three seasons to boot) should give you an idea how much I enjoyed it. I'd put it up there in quality with the best in any medium, be it film or television. With all of these I felt as if the review was finished in my mind before I even touched the keyboard.

Which movie(s) did you hate reviewing?
The Good Shepherd While I did find it a chore to sit through, I didn't despise the movie and even gave it a near-miss score of two and a half stars. The real torture was when I had to sit down and write a review of a three hour movie I had nothing to say about. I stared at a blank screen for so long I thought my eyes would start bleeding.

Which movie disappointed you most?
As strange as this sounds, probably The Dark Knight. I do think it's more a testament to all the hype than the movie's actual quality, but the fact remains that it fell short of expectations, as out of control as they may have been. And it was still the best film of '08 and maybe one of the best of the decade so it's frightening to think how good it COULD HAVE BEEN.

How do you feel about star ratings?
I hate them. I wish I were confident enough in my own writing to abandon it and believe people would still read the reviews but I'm not. My concern is always that the number of stars will inform the review when it should always be the other way around. But as someone who reads a lot of reviews I have to admit most of the time I like seeing some kind of a quantitative assessment attached. But many reviewers don't use it, nor do they need them. It really all depends on personal preference I guess. There was only one case where I refused to assign one. The whole idea of it is damaging, but I can never bring myself to abandon it.

In retrospect, ever feel like you've given any movies the wrong star ratings?
When haven't I? Not to keep beating the same drum on 2008, but I felt I gave many, many movies released that year the wrong star rating. When this happens I usually have to force myself not to adjust it later by remembering:

a) The star rating MEANS nothing in the broad scheme of things.
b) It reflected my thoughts AT THE TIME.
c) It's the actual review that counts
d) It takes two viewings to really SEE a movie.

Usually when I do my year-end list all my thoughts get ironed out and the problem takes care of itself. The good news is that I never felt I gave something the WRONG REVIEW entirely. I can barely recall more than three instances I underrated a movie but can name dozens of times where I felt I overpraised one. I like to think the star rating problem keeps lessens over time because the more movies I watch the more sure I seem to become of my opinions.

How much does a theater experience effect your opinion of the film?
Greatly, as The Dark Knight proved. That was one of the worst theater experiences I've ever had where an unpleasant environment magnified that movie's weaknesses while hiding its strengths. Repeated DVD viewings have been much, much kinder to it. On the opposite end of the spectrum, Australia was really a complete mess of a movie but the theater experience was so memorably bizarre and the crowd so insane that it probably made the movie play better than it actually was. It was fun watching their energy level slowly drain as the movie just kept going...and going...and going. I'm convinced those people are still in there right now watching it. I know I'm committing a film critic sin by saying this but I actually far prefer watching movies on DVD at home than in a theater. It's cheaper, more comfortable, I can go to the bathroom or get a snack without missing anything. There are just less distractions.

How long does a review take?
I've never actually timed it but I can tell you I never do it in one sit-in. I'm the kind of person who always has to be moving around and have difficulties staying in front of the computer too long. So I might write part of it and then go back to it later or the next day depending on my mood. Unfortunately most of it is written really late at night though so sleep is lost and I sometimes wake up the next morning having not recognized what I wrote (which might be a good thing).

What's your least favorite part of writing a review?
Recapping the plot...by far. It's a pain. I wish I could just skip it and get right to what I liked and didn't.

How much do you weigh blogs views in choosing what films or topics you choose to write about?
I look at them that's for sure. I do primarily write for me but if I come up with a piece that's just not connecting with readers at all and I put a lot into it I can pretty much guarantee you won't see anything like it again. The best (worst) example of this was when I did the "Fantasy Casting" pieces. I thought it was a great idea and loved doing it. But it was like a tree falling in the forest as far as its reception and blog views. One of the worst ever. So I can't justify doing it again.The same thing tends to happen when I review older films. Those do very poorly, but when they're are incorporated into a list of some sort it always does well. I tend not to solicit too much feedback on this issue because I find people to be understandably reluctant to tell me that an idea sucks. Blog views can't lie.

Which review of yours got the harshest response?
I remember everyone unanimously, and rather passionately, disagreed with my take on Death Sentence. I couldn't believe how worked up everyone got over it and was so thrilled that no one held back in letting me know it. Sometimes it can be boring when everyone agrees with you all the time. That's a movie that will have strong reactions either way but I just thought it was two hours of gratuitous violence masquerading as grief exploration with Kevin Bacon killing everyone in sight. And this coming from someone whose all-time favorite films include A Clockwork Orange and Fight Club.

Any movie(s) you think you may have gone too hard on?
Miami Vice, Superman Returns and Birth. Especially that last one. This rarely happens so it's a big compliment to those three that, despite what I considered to be their failings, they still stuck with me enough that I'd be open to going back and giving them another look.

Do you have a review or reviews you're most proud of?
This is going to sound awful but it would be tough to name something specifically. I might have a fleeting moment where I'm really proud of something I've written but then I'm quickly brought back down to Earth after I go to reread it and find about 50 things I didn't like about it. Then I might go and read other reviews and that just about kills it for me right there. Plus I'm usually so focused on the next review that I don't like to look back. But the best answer to this question is to look above at the ones I enjoyed reviewing the most. Those are the ones I feel best about.

What bad reviewing habits do you think you have or try to avoid?
Trying to say more in fewer words than with many. Whenever I edit a review it's always to take things out and never add, which is a good sign I guess. The key to good editing is to change enough so it's more readable but not so much that it changes the message. I try to stay away from using the same adjectives or phrases over and over again, not only in a single review, but throughout all of them. I also try to steer clear of comparing the movie I'm reviewing to other other ones unless it's completely relevant to the point I'm trying to make.

Ever get writer's bl0ck?
No, never. Kidding. All the time. What I usually do is just leave the computer. If I'm not feeling it, I'm not feeling it. There's no sense just sitting there frustrated when most writing is done in your head when you're away from the keyboard anyway. When I'm stuck I do find it helpful to remind myself of Ebert's advice:

"Did you like the movie? Why or why not?"

It sounds so dumb and simple but you'd be surprised how well it works. Most of the time writers block stems from just thinking too hard or over-analyzing. I find that question helps with the problem.

Ever think of doing more with the site or more to get your reviews out there?
I have but I'm not exactly the most web savvy person in the world and am far more consumed with focusing on the actual work. Believe me I'm under no illusion that I'm anything other than a needle in a haystack online. That said, I should be doing much more in that area and plan to. Of course, I've said that before and haven't done anything.

How many movies do you see a week?
Usually only one or two. No more than your average, everyday moviegoer with the difference being I've written reviews on them. I think the max I've ever seen in a week was three or four, but that rarely happens. I only REALLY started getting into movies when I started doing this and am willing to bet a lot of my readers probably have me beat on classic film knowledge still feel like I'm learning as I go along.

What's your DVD collection look like?
Embarrassingly small. I never counted but it's barely two shelves worth. I think that's a testament to just how few movies hold up on repeated viewings or are worth owning for me. Most of the movies I have bought have been used and a lot of the time I resell or exchange them. As far as what I review, aside from theatrical releases, this whole time I've basically just been renting them for a dollar from a Redbox or DVD Xpress kiosk system in the supermarket. The amount of money I've saved on buying DVDs in the past few years is probably more than five times the salary of any paid reviewer.

Do you use NetFlix?
Not right now. About a year ago I tried it briefly and didn't like it. I found the wait for new releases to be unbearably long and by the time it came I practically lost interest in watching them. I also found updating and keeping track of movies in the queue to be a thankless task. I'm giving it another chance soon (probably by the time you read this) since the titles in the dollar machines are now pretty much exclusively Direct-to-DVD junk due to legal trouble with the studios who are losing money on it. There also tons of of older movie titles I want to see as well as seasons of TV series' I can't get because I lost HBO and Showtime. There's really no choice at this point.

Have a Blu-Ray Player?
Nope. I realize I must be coming off as the cheapest movie critic on Earth right now but I just don't see the point in investing in something that could disappear in a couple of years. I learned my lesson with laserdisc years ago and considering I don't purchase many DVDs it just isn't worth it for me when my player suits me just fine for my purposes. The only thing that really bothers me is that the Blu-Ray discs contain special features the regular DVDs don't. Knowing me I'll probably cave eventually but for right now I'm fine.

How long do you let a movie sit in your head before reviewing it?
It depends on the film. Obviously some require more time for thought and reflection than others. I usually write the first couple of paragraphs right after though, while it's still fresh in my mind. The other details take a little longer to come into focus and with some it can really take a while. You don't want to jump the gun, yet you can't wait so long that you don't care anymore.

What do you think it takes to review movies?
1. A genuine passion for movies
2. The ability to express that in writing
3. Being sure of your opinion, but admitting when you're not.
4. Having a knowledge of a wide variety of topics and reading and keeping up with what's going on in the world so you can incorporate that insight into the reviews (my weakest area but I'm improving).

Have any desire to write or direct?
I know no one's gonna believe me when I say this, but no. I did take a screenwriting course years ago and found I was more interested in analyzing the study films and talking about what goes into writing a good screenplay than actually writing one. When it came to sit down at the keyboard, I discovered I had no ear when it came to dialogue. I didn't enjoy the experience and wanted to just keep analyzing the study films instead. As far as directing, no way. The technical aspects that go into making a film doesn't play to my strengths and there are too many elements that could spiral out of control. And I can't stand not being in control. It looks like a big headache that could potentially kill me from stress. Of course this should be taken with a grain of salt since I've never tried it, but I can't envision that I ever would.

While I feel writing and directing are out of my grasp, I do think I'd make a better producer, casting director or agent than many of these studio executives being paid to tell us what we want. You may have noticed during my reviews I often pause and examine how a movie was (mis) marketed or what steps could have been taken in the production stages to make it better. But I'm certainly not "paying my dues" in an industry where I feel most of the decision makers are clueless or hold views that clash entirely with mine. I love movies and want to keep it that way.

How much does personal experience effect how you view a movie?
It's everything. I think we all see a different movie because of the experiences we bring into it. I recently re-watched a film for consideration on my decade-end list and it personally spoke to me like it never did before. It couldn't have carried the impact it did now even just a few years ago just because of where I was at in my life. Sounds silly, but it's totally true.

Would you ever judge someone by which movies they like or don't like (be honest)?
No. They're still just movies. Having said that, I'd be lying if I told you I didn't think a person's list of their all-time favorite films told me at least something about them. And if it didn't, it's likely not a list I'd be interested in reading.

Greatest director of all-time?
Kubrick. There's no other name I would mention as even coming close even though I know some would say Hitchcock, but he only worked in one genre. I don't think for a second he could do what Kubrick did whereas I have no doubt that Kubrick could not only step in and direct one of Hitch's films, but probably make it even more interesting. Spielberg is great, but I don't think he belongs in the discussion.

Favorite Director(s) working now?
No surprises here. My three favorites are David Fincher, Richard Kelly and Paul Thomas Anderson. Right now, they're making the types of movies I enjoy watching most.

Most overrated director?
Spike Lee. Never got with him at all.

Favorite Actors/Actresses
Too many to list but here are the big ones. As far as actors I'm a fan of Michael Douglas, Philip Seymour Hoffman, Dustin Hoffman, Robert Downey Jr., Joseph Gordon-Levitt, Ben Foster, Emile Hirsch, Sean Penn, DiCaprio, Bill Murray, Jeff Bridges, Brad Pitt, Ed Norton, Josh Brolin and Patrick Wilson. Surprisingly, also Tom Cruise, who I think has always been underrated as an acting talent. As far as actresses, you can sign me up anytime Jennifer Connelly, Julianne Moore, Nicole Kidman (possibly my favorite), Naomi Watts, Gwyneth Paltrow, Cate Blanchett, Kristen Bell or Zooey Deschanel are in anything. Clooney and Jolie are two actors I was previously never a fan of but lately they've really been earning their stripes and I've come around.

Least Favorite Actors/Actresses?
Almost Famous notwithstanding, Kate Hudson has given one awful performance after another in some dreadful films. But I only complain about her so much because I know she's capable of better. Don't care for Dane Cooke or Jessica Alba as actors, but that almost seems too easy. I've completely given up on Kate Beckinsale who would be the blandest, most wooden actress working today if Jennifer Aniston weren't around. Everyone else would just fit into the "overrated" category for me. Natalie Portman and Scarlett Johansson have surprisingly little to show for themselves despite being surrounded by a ton of hype and I never understood all the praise for Johnny Depp, who hasn't proven to me yet he can effectively play anything other than misfits and freaks.

Actors/Actresses you're most disappointed in?
Hudson obviously tops the list, followed closely by Nicolas Cage. I'd say Sandra Bullock also but after The Blind Side I guess the joke's on me. She's probably busy rolling around in a giant pile of cash right now.

What famous classic or famous movies would people be surprised you haven't seen?
I still haven't made it all the way through Gone With the Wind (not a knock on the film, just time constraints always got in the way). Haven't seen the Godfather Parts II and III, although I hear I'm not missing much with that last one. Never saw Terminator 2: Judgment Day either, or the Harry Potter films and The Lord of the Rings Trilogy, both of which I have very little interest in (see "least favorite genres"). I've also never seen any of the Bourne films.

Any movies you refuse to see?
The Blind Side. Just kidding (kind of). "Refuse" is a little strong but...the Twilight "saga." This is actually a much bigger insult than it seems because, despite preferring certain types of movies, I'm usually willing to see ANYTHING.

What trends in the movie industry today do you hate?
Every movie released these days being aimed at the tween demographic (see above). Inflated ticket prices. Double and triple dipping on DVD releases. Movies being advertised as something they're not [i.e. Slumdog Millionaire as a Bollywood Musical, (500) Days of Summer as a whimsical "date movie"]. Certain films being shoved down my throat by the media. Movies with political agendas. Only movies released in the last month of the year getting Academy Award consideration. That last one pisses me off the most. Besides being criminally unfair, I actually think that's the major reason no one bothers watching the Oscars.

Worst Oscar snub in history?
It's impossible to pick just one and this will seem completely random but for some reason two that really stick out for me are A Christmas Story (1984) and Back to the Future (1985) being overlooked for Best Picture nominations. If I could give any two "correction" Oscars out it would be to those two films which, over time, have proven just how worthy they are. There just so few pictures released that families can enjoy together through the decades regardless of age and also be effective as perfect mainstream entertainment. When I think of the template for the perfect nominee or winner I immediately get an image of those two movies in my head. The Academy has gotten it wrong many times, but that they snubbed those two make me sick to my stomach.

Do you read the novel before seeing the film?
No. Never. Shamefully, I don't read as much as I'd like in general. I really do feel guilty about that because I know it would make me a better writer but between watching and reviewing movies and other stuff I just don't have the time. But I don't like to read a novel before watching the movie it's based on (especially if it's something I know I'll be reviewing) because I find it taints the experience and don't want to turn into one of those people whining about how "the book was better." And usually, if I've seen the movie first and like it enough to read the novel, I tend not to because I felt the movie got the job done for me.

The Ten Best Films of 2008

First off, my apologies to 2007. I had previously stated that year wasn't a great one for films. How wrong I was. What do Into The Wild, There Will Be Blood, Zodiac, I'm Not There and Michael Clayton all have common? Well, they're all better than every single film on the list you're about to read. And in retrospect any year that finds No Country For Old Men, Grindhouse, The Lookout and The Mist all MISSING my top ten has to be considered pretty impressive. Even throwaway guilty pleasures like Alpha Dog and Smokin' Aces left a more indelible print than could have reasonably been expected. 2008, on the other hand, truly was a bad year and it's unlikely my opinion on that will change anytime soon. Compiling a list of the finest cinematic endeavors in a year this unfulfilling was a challenge.

It was also a year where I massively overpraised so many undeserving films that if there were such a thing as a critic's license, mine should have been revoked. I've since learned my lesson. In my defense though a critic is almost forced to give an impulsive response to a picture upon a single viewing without taking into account how the film will age in your mind after that viewing or hold up on repeated ones. So, AT THE TIME the analysis was right on the money. Now...not so much. Obviously, problems arise when you revisit certain films and realize they were far less than they first appeared.

Waiting until June to compile the list had a devastating effect for many of the movies that made the cut and made this process substantially more interesting. Is it really too much to ask that a movie holds up on a second or third viewing months later? Apparently so. Picking the top film was much easier than expected. All I had to do is watch many of these movies again and see them drop like flies. Only one survived. After years of doing this I think I've finally figured out the secret formula to determining the year's best film. I ask myself the following questions:

1. Is it a feat that can be duplicated? (if it is, chances are it isn't the year's best)
2. Can I watch it over and over again, discovering something new on each viewing?
3. Do I want to watch it RIGHT NOW? (regardless of the mood I'm in)
4. How difficult was it to execute?
5. Does it say something, meaningful, lasting and important?

Obviously, there's some wiggle room with those questions but they succeed in being objective, while still taking personal preference into account. Just reading them gives a major hint what that movie is this year. The truth is 2008 is likely to be remembered more for great performances than films. Sean Penn in the otherwise sour Milk. Micky Rourke's career resurrection in The Wrestler. Clint Eastwood in Gran Torino. And of course, you know who...in you know what. Those performances will stay with us. The films probably won't. I kept waiting for something brilliant to come out of left field and reaffirm my love for movies. I waited. And waited. But nothing.

It was a year where even the #1 film on my list was a disappointment of sorts and fell short of reaching its full potential. I'm not at all surprised what that film is, so much as the tumultuous road it took to get there. It's a tainted victory, but a victory nonetheless. Taking all this into account I've gone with a slightly different approach this year in adding a "WHAT'S WRONG WITH IT?" section for each selection to reflect the creatively uneven output of the past year. These films will justifiably be praised, but not without measured criticism that reflect the discoveries I made on subsequent viewings (most of which were negative).

It's time to right some wrongs. And now the next time someone asks me why I own so few DVD's I can just show them a list of last year's theatrical releases because this just proves how difficult it is for a movie to hold up on a second viewing, much less a third or fourth, and to do it years (or in this case even months) down the line. If you dislike brutal honesty I suggest you stop reading now. These are the best films of the year...and I'm using the term "BEST" very loosely.

10. Definitely, Maybe (Director-Adam Brooks)

Crafting a smart and entertaining mainstream American romantic comedy is becoming a lost art. Depending on which day you get me on I'm either really proud or profoundly embarrassed to say I'm a fan of the "chick flick." This is a reminder that in the rare cases it's done really well there's no shame at all in enjoying one (even if you're a guy). A rom-com mystery that kind of plays like a feature length film version of How I Met Your Mother, there's genuine doubt as to the film's central question of maternity. And who would have guessed Ryan Reynolds could be this likable as a lead?

You actually care about the lives and personalities of all three of the women (played by Elizabeth Banks, Rachel Weisz and Isla Fisher) and anyone watching is bound to have a rooting interest in who he ends up with. Interestingly, I found my allegiance on that issue has shifted since the first viewing. There's no obvious "wrong choice," which is why Adam Brooks' underrated script works so well. The early to mid-90's setting (often under-represented in movies) only helps its cause. It's the kind of movie where you can just shut off your brain and have a great time.

What's Wrong With It?
Chalk it up to extremely low expectations but, surprisingly, not much other than it's too lightweight to be considered anything meaningful. It touches on some life issues, none of which you'll be contemplating long after the film ends. But this isn't that kind of movie, nor does it need to be. It's one of the best romantic comedies to come around recently, but in just about any other year it wouldn't be cracking the top 10.


9. Gran Torino (Director-Clint Eastwood)

While other dramas this year strained to find social relevance or force fed a preachy message down our throats, star and director Eastwood actually bothered to intelligently explore some real issues that speak about the world we live in now. And he did it in a way that didn't condescend to the audience or over-sympathize of the situation, which would have been an easy route to take given the difficult material.

As the tough-minded, racist, Korean War Vet Walt Kowalski who begrudgingly takes a shy Hmong teen (Bee Vang) under his wing , Clint never tries to get us to like him. Instead he plays Walt as a man so stubbornly set in his ways that we have no choice but to accept him as he is, at the same time acknowledging what a damn fool he is by acting the way he does. We're just waiting for him to catch on and when he does the film enters unexpected suburban Dirty Harry territory. I have to be careful in calling this a "drama" because the film has more laugh-out loud moments and situations than the past few Jim Carrey and Will Ferrell comedies combined. Clint does a lot more than just grunt and grimace through this, although there's still plenty of that if you're interested. He even sings over the closing credits.

Nick Schenck's script walks a really fine line with the comic relief and it's destined to offend some, but Eastwood pulls it off. Christopher Carley is fantastic as the young priest who won't give up on Walt, when all signs say he should. I'd congratulate Eastwood for directing and producing two major films (this and Changeling) in the past year at almost 80 years old but he's one guy I don't want to get angry. So let's just say it's an impressive feat for someone any age.

What's Wrong With It?
Is it a comedy? A drama? A biting social satire? It's about a million things at once and while it's Eastwood's most interesting directorial effort since 1993's A Perfect World, it's all over the map in terms of what it's trying to be. Not to mention it's just plain strange and uncomfortable at times. We know what Eastwood is going for, but when the xenophobic slurs are THAT FUNNY and delivered with such impeccable comic timing by Eastwood doesn't the message get muddled...just a little bit?


8. WALL-E (Director-Andrew Stanton)

The first time I saw Andrew Stanton's WALL-E, I was blown away. The second time, much less so. But I'll always have that initial viewing for when just a few hours after leaving the theater I thought I had witnessed the kind of magical movie (reminiscent of early Spielberg) that just can't ever be topped. Then reality set in about a week later. You could argue Pixar bit off more than it could chew with some really deep material for a family film but that's preferable to condescending to your audience. While I don't know of any small child who could sit through it without getting restless, for fans of animation and Sci-Fi this was pretty much a cinematic dream come true.

What's Wrong With It?
I was SHOCKED how poorly this held up on a repeated viewing. So poorly that this went from being one of my favorites of the year to just barely making the list. Taking into account the film runs only 97 minutes, the story seemed to drag a little in the third act, making me wonder if those who claimed that Stanton couldn't deliver on the promise of its nearly silent opening 4o minutes may have been right. As "perfect" as all these recent Pixar movies seem to be and how everyone says they're breaking new ground, I have to ask why so many of them have a shelf life of a single viewing? And why do they FEEL so long despite barely clocking in at an hour and a half? While technically brilliant and emotionally satisfying, I'm starting to think they represent a "one and done" experience.

Is it possible that Pixar is just replicating the same movie over and over again with different characters but a similar recipe? It sure seems like it, although that's not such an insult when you consider how good they are at it. Their latest, Up, opened to predictably glowing reviews and massive box office, but I'm surprised just how little interest I have in seeing it. I'm Pixared out. Don't get me wrong though. Wall-E is easily one of the year's best and a tremendous film, just not nearly as tremendous as I originally thought.


7. Pineapple Express (Director-David Gordon Green)

Finally, the question is answered as to what would happen if a really gifted filmmaker "lowered" himself and decided to direct a stoner comedy. That filmmaker is David Gordon Green and in a year where nearly nothing met expectations the results are even better than we could have hoped. It's a buddy film. It's an 80's action movie. It's flat-out hilarious. Seth Rogen gives his most likable performance yet as slacking process server while James Franco's should-have-been-nominated supporting turn as the stoned out (but surprisingly good-hearted) Saul shows us all how funny he was capable of being if just given the opportunity. Its final act accomplishes what 2007's Hot Fuzz did, but much better.

What's Wrong With It?
No matter how well executed it is, it's still just a really hilarious (if extremely well-made) stoner comedy. That's it.


6. In Bruges (Director-Martin McDonagh)

The most underrated film of the year. Actually, the ONLY underrated film of the year. I saw this the same week I saw The Dark Knight and just never got around to reviewing it, something I've regretted since. That's ironic because Irish playwright Martin McDonagh's debut feature about two hitmen (Brendan Gleeson and Colin Farrell) looking for redemption in the small, boring Belgium town of Bruges as they await their next job, stayed with me longer than so many other 2008 releases. I had literally no interest in seeing it but did so on the basis of universally glowing recommendations. They were right.

The Oscar-nominated original script (HOW DID THIS LOSE TO MILK?) is an example of great screenwriting at its very essence. I cared about every character. The dwarf. The girlfriend. Ralph Fiennes' brilliantly rendered hitman who hates his wife. Even the town of Bruges feels like a living, breathing character. But more than that, I felt sympathy for their situation. Earned sympathy. There's a code of morals and ethics...even among contracted killers. McDonagh and his actors somehow find the humanity in this. And that bell tower scene...wow.

The Oscars may have gotten it all wrong but the Hollywood Foreign Press got it right recognizing this as one of the year's best and rewarding Farrell, who gives the performance of his life here. Anyone doubting this guy's chops as an actor needs to see this movie right now. And anyone still questioning the power of voice over narration as a storytelling device will be blown away by the powerful monologue that closes the film, as its the best piece of screenwriting this year.

What's Wrong With It?
There actually isn't much wrong with this picture. While this isn't so much a knock on the film per se, the crime/gangster genre has been revisited ad nauseam ever since Pulp Fiction was released in 1994. Did we really need another one of these? The film, as good as it is, is more an achievement in screenwriting than anything else and unfortunately just not big enough in scope or importance to rank anywhere near the top of this list.


5. Frost/Nixon (Director-Ron Howard)

Far from the stuffy Oscar bait it was promoted as, this was one of the most surprisingly taut and exciting pictures of 2008 and an intriguing look into the psyche of one of our most misunderstood historical figures. It's not that we were ever wrong about who Richard Nixon was or what he did, but I don't think we were ever quite sure exactly why he did it. The answer to the question is deeper and more complicated than it first appears and it's all contained in the Oscar nominated performance of Frank Langella as the disgraced former President and the equally impressive Michael Sheen as David Frost, the reporter who pushed him to the breaking point in a series of television interviews in the late '70's.

Adapting historical events to film is hard. Adapting them from a stage play might even be harder. The film's success is less dependent on Ron Howard's direction (which is fine but nothing special) than a complete embodiment of these men by the two actors. It's almost eerie how as the story wears on Langella seems to transform himself physically and emotionally into the President to the point where in the finals scene we feel like as if we're watching Nixon. Peter Morgan's script leaves us with the the feeling that these two almost needed each other in a way, wanting to take the other down to cleanse themselves of their own failures.

What's Wrong With It?
It's a history lesson. The more movies I see based on historical events the more I start to think that there won't ever be one that could top a year-end list (and I'd even go so far as to include Schindler's List in that club). Howard avoids the usual pitfalls of the genre and crafts an exciting piece of cinematic non-fiction but that we already know the outcome (and how little it yielded) hangs over the film like a dark cloud. We go to movies to escape from the real world, not immerse ourselves in a dramatic recreation of it. "Based on true events" is a tough label to shake.


4. The Wrestler (Director-Darren Aronofsky)

Welcome back Mickey Rourke. If years down the line no one remembers much from the last year in film (which is sadly a real possibility) they'll at least never forget Rourke's eerily personal and emotionally scarred portrayal of washed-up '80's wrestling superstar Randy "The Ram" Robinson. Marisa Tomei and Evan Rachel Wood shine, but Rourke is this movie. The thought that Nicolas Cage could have actually been cast in the title role instead is a scary possibility not even worth contemplating. We know who was born to play Ram. Aronofsky (in his most emotionally effective film to date) pulls back the curtain to show us how the wrestling business can chew up and spit out its performers and how for one of them leaving it is more painful than staying in, even if it could cost him his life.

The infamous "deli scene" is either my favorite or least favorite movie moment of the year, depending on whether you enjoy watching people struggling to survive in the most uncomfortable social situations imaginable. The saddest part of that scene isn't how it ends, but that Ram was actually really good at that job and almost seemed to enjoy it up until that point. How he translated his skills as a performer to the deli counter. It makes you wonder what else he could have been good at. If scenes like that don't win you Oscars, what does? Sorry Sean but that statue belongs to Mickey.

What's Wrong With It?
It's so depressing you'll want to hang yourself after the credits roll. Rourke's performance curbs a lot of that but if a movie is going to be this dark it better be full of huge ideas and big issues to think about when it's over. There really aren't any here. It's pretty cut and dry and doesn't lend itself to any kind of deep analysis. The film is primarily a showcase for Rourke, even though he does an incredible job in making it feel like it isn't. Looking back, Tomei's performance isn't the slightest bit Oscar-worthy. Also, while the film is technically superb, Aronofsky doesn't break new ground as the low budget indie faux-documentary style has been beaten into submission (cheap pun I know) by other films

Maybe it's just the wrestling fan in me talking but I can't help but think this movie was released about a decade too late, which could explain why it didn't quite strike the mainstream chord it should have. And while it brought some much needed attention to what wrestlers really do and sacrifice, it did so at the cost of reinforcing the worst stereotypes people have about professional wrestling.


3. Slumdog Millionaire (Director-Danny Boyle)

Last year's Best Picture Oscar winner about a peasant from the slums of Mumbai who goes on to win the Indian version of Who Wants to be a Millionaire? and find his lost love is a tale of two movies. The one Danny Boyle actually made and the one the media and the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences want to believe that he made because it fits so nicely into their perfectly shaped box of what crowd-pleasing, inoffensive entertainment is supposed to be. It's both the year's most overrated and underrated film at the same time. Simon Beaufoy's script (adapted from Vikas Swarup's novel, "Q&A") is ingenious in how it seamlessly shifts back and forth through flashbacks to reveal how 18-year-old Jamal (Dev Patel) knew the answers to all those questions and dissenters of the screenplay's supposedly "manipulative" structure forget that all the queries on a show like that are dependent on someone just simply paying attention to everything that's around them.

Though it didn't garner a single acting nomination, the performances are universally strong across the board with Anil Kapoor's work as the arrogant host going criminally overlooked by nearly everyone. Frieda Pinto does a good enough job looking pretty and seeming just unattainable enough. The best edited and scored film on this list by a landslide. That train sequence (set to M.I.A.'s "Paper Planes") is one for the vault. And regardless of what's been said everywhere it's not the fluffy "feel-good movie of the year." There's a lot more substance to it than that...I think.

What's Wrong With It?
When I watched this a second time I found myself staring at my watch waiting for key events to happen and when they did, the emotional reaction I had the first time was absent. I'd be curious to know if anyone else tried that and had the exact same "been there, done that" response I did. This tells me the script is primarily dependent on surprises, revelations and plot turns rather than real emotional truth. The movie seemed more mechanical and choreographed to me the second time, making me wonder if there is some truth in those plot manipulation claims.

And don't even get me started on the film being referred to as the "Obama of the Best Picture nominees," or worse yet, that we should all just embrace it because we're in a recession. Sure, it won the Best Picture Oscar...but FOR ALL THE WRONG REASONS. It's been just a few months and it already hasn't aged well. Unfortunately, the only thing people are talking about now in regards to the film are what prices the child stars are going for and how they can further be exploited.


2. The Curious Case of Benjamin Button (Director-David Fincher)

Just for the record, as a self-professed Fincher fanatic, here's where I stand: Better than Alien 3, Se7en and Panic Room. Worse than The Game, Fight Club and Zodiac. So no, despite my initail glowing overreaction this isn't going to be remembered as our greatest living director's masterwork. But I love it and it's a hell of a lot better than it's been given credit for. Haters of the film could only keep coming back to one argument: It reminded them of Forrest Gump. That's pretty weak. As if being reminded of that great film is a capital offense. It's an obvious shot at screenwriter Eric Roth, who penned both, and I can kind of see where they're coming from....to a point. Luckily the Academy got wise for once and ignored all of them, showering the film with 13 nominations. Their motivations behind that may be suspect as usual, but when it comes to rewarding the long overdue Fincher, I'll take it.

By taking what COULD HAVE BEEN another Forrest Gump in the hands of anyone else and making it darker and sadder, Fincher turns a movie about life into one about death. A protagonist aging backwards should be a showy gimmick and the film could have easily collapsed under the weight of its groundbreaking digital effects but because of Fincher's vision (and the nuanced performances of Brad Pitt and Cate Blanchett) it becomes something much more. For proof of just how much more, read F. Scott Fitzgerald's short story from which its based and marvel at how he and Roth took a somewhat meager and unformed conceit and turned it into an epic journey.

What's Wrong With It?
Not nearly as much as you've heard, but Roth's script is clearly the weak link here. The film is so technically well made that at times it's painfully obvious that Fincher's skills are far above some of the trivial circumstances presented in the screenplay (i.e. the sea boat captain stuff). While this had one of the better second viewings on the list I couldn't help but think I was completing a homework assignment while watching it just from the sheer density of it all. Movies today are just too long and we can probably add this to the long list of films that would be greatly improved by cutting just 15 or 20 minutes.

When Benjamin and Daisy end up "meeting in the middle" and we head into the brilliant final hour the film soars to heights so high that the earlier portions can't help but be damaged in comparison. Because we expect nothing less than perfection from Fincher each time out he'll always be in competition with himself, forcing us to compare this to his previous output. Such a comparison does this movie no favors. Despite these issues I desperately wanted to put this in the #1 spot, but doing so would be an endorsement of my favorite director's resume rather the actual film.


1. The Dark Knight (Director-Christopher Nolan)

It's overlong. Some of the action scenes are sloppily edited. The plot's too convoluted. Bale's performance is just adequate. It didn't meet the massive expectations. And, sorry, it's no masterpiece. So what is it about Nolan's film that sets it a league apart from every other movie released this year? It has just as many flaws as any other film on this list, but with one key difference: It's flaws MAKE IT A MORE INTERESTING FILM and add to the overall experience. They're the result of a filmmaker's reach exceeding his grasp in a brave attempt to give us something we've never seen before. For the most part he succeeded. Nolan should take a bow because he crafted the only film this year that gains in power with each viewing and the first movie in over ten years to top my list that didn't earn four stars from me when I saw it initially. Go figure. It was just that kind of year. Truthfully, after re-watching all the films on this list, I'm still not sure if any of them are deserving of four stars (as silly as that whole rating system is anyway).

In an unfortunate circumstance, when I saw The Dark Knight last summer it ended up being the single worst theater going experience of my life. I doubted the film could ever recover. But recover it did...and then some. The flaws I saw the first time haven't gone away exactly. They just mean less in the overall scheme of things. I've accepted that I'll never love this film as much as everyone else, but there's no question it was the most ambitious and important achievement of the year and a landscape changer. For a moment in July, 2008 that barrier separating the critical from the commercial briefly disappeared for the first time since the release of Titanic in 1997. Everyone was a part of something, regardless of race, age or gender. When I think back on all the most memorable film moments from 2008, all of them can be found in Nolan's film (including the one above).

For a while, even while my appreciation for the somewhat messy, overly ambitious film increased, I was still unsure whether it was really "robbed" of a Best Picture nomination. Watching the actual telecast I made up my mind. It was. Flaws and all, this was still a better movie than the other nominees. But one Oscar it should have never been up for is Best Editing because this movie is a great example of how lost time in the editing booth can stop a great film from being a masterpiece. Questionable choices in this area still prevent me from being on board like I want to be and I still say the movie doesn't really get going until the corpse of that crook dangles outside the Gotham Mayor's window (which still caused me to jump even on a fourth viewing).

Most feel the third act involving D.A. Harvey Dent's transformation into Two-Face is what should have been left on the cutting room floor or saved for another film, but I don't completely agree. There's too much over-explanatory mob focus in the first hour that could have easily been given the ax instead. Besides, it's hard to argue less screen time for Aaron Eckhart who leaves painful memories of Tommy Lee Jones in the dust.

What amazed me most were the surprises. The fate of the Joker. Of Rachel. Of Harvey. Of Jim Gordon. Writers Jonathan Nolan and David S. Goyer subverted all expectations of how we thought things would go down. And who could have guessed Gary Oldman would have given us that much in what was just expected to be a minor, throwaway role? His delivery of that speech at the end? Chills. Gyllenhaal for Holmes? A fair trade, but a much narrower victory for Maggie than anyone predicted.

You can't discount the role Heath Ledger's death played in the prism through which we view the film. To do that would be flat-out denial. So would be denying that his Oscar winning portrayal was worthy of all the hype accompanying it, regardless of the tragic circumstances. This is not one of the decade's best films. Not even close. But few performances this decade, supporting or otherwise, were as powerful and demonic as Ledger's. It was the one aspect that turned out better than anticipated, if that's possible.

Usually I'm not a huge fan of superhero movies, which is a good thing since this isn't one. Nolan directed a crime drama played completely straight and stripped of all the usual conventions associated with the genre. Hopefully we do get a sequel because I think he's capable of crafting something even better than this. Yet at the same time I'll admit to being kind of curious as to the direction another filmmaker could take the franchise. Now almost a full year removed from its release The Dark Knight plays as well as ever. It isn't perfect but it is groundbreaking, reaching higher and accomplishing more than any other film in a weak year.