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)

W.

Director: Oliver Stone
Starring: Josh Brolin, Elizabeth Banks, Jams Cromwell, Ellen Burstyn, Richard Dreyfuss, Toby Jones, Jeffrey Wright, Thandie Newton, Scott Glenn
Running Time: 129 min.
Rating: PG-13

***1/2 (out of ****)

In a lot of ways I fit the profile of the type of moviegoer Oliver Stone is reaching out to with W. Someone who definitely agrees George W. Bush didn’t do a good job as President yet doesn't necessarily have a burning desire to see him dragged through the mud. He was bad at his job and that’s it. A lot of people are bad at their jobs, but unfortunately it just so happens his job description reads: “Leader of the Free World.”

It’s possible for someone to enter a situation with the best possible intentions, only to find themselves in way over their head. Recently, I was talking to someone about the upcoming election and mentioned that Bush must be counting down the days until he’s a free man so he can go home to Texas to get some rest. That didn’t go over so well. Just that I even implied Bush was trying to do his job to the best of his abilities was blasphemous. As if he’s been sitting in the Oval Office for 8 years thinking of ways to wreck our country.

People can say what they want about Bush (and likely have) but I never thought there was a phony bone in his body. This isn’t Nixon. He’s not a crook or a liar. Instead, this is someone who shoots straight and will go to whatever lengths necessary to carry out what he believes in, even if it’s wrong. But in his mind he’s never wrong, especially when surrounded by people whose primary job it is to agree with everything he says. W. may be a fair portrayal of the man but despite what you’ve heard it isn’t necessarily a sympathetic one. That it’s actually been considered such should tell you all you need to know about how poorly the public perceives him. But it is just about as flattering a portrait as he could have possibly received and you could argue he’s just lucky to have a film based on his life with this much depth at all.
Stone paints him 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 the circumstances. But more importantly, in being the first biopic centered around a current sitting President’s legacy, we’re robbed of time, distance and historical context in examining the film, making for some fascinating results. Not having that context may affect how we view the film right now, but strangely it doesn’t seem to have any impact on how Stone made it. Is it too soon? Probably, but that doesn’t make it any less memorable.

Stone presents Bush (Josh Brolin) as living a life defined by a failure to earn his father George Senior’s (James Cromwell’s) love and respect, something that was always exclusively reserved for his younger brother Jeb. The film follows a non-linear structure, flashing back to Bush’s younger days at Yale as a drunk womanizer who couldn’t hold a job and occasionally had to be bailed out of jail. He meets his future wife Laura (Elizabeth Banks), runs for Governor of Texas and helps dad with his 1988 Presidential campaign. There’s little shown of Bush’s days as owner of the Texas Rangers baseball franchise, though that’s more than made up for with a very inventive framing device. He never really got his act together until the age of 40 when he quit drinking and found God. That faith would beckon him to seek the country’s highest office and guide much of his future decision-making. The flashbacks are interspersed with scenes of the Bush Presidency post-9/11. This is the portion that will have everyone talking.

Of course the real thrill here is seeing a diverse and talented group of actors flesh out current political figures whose personalities have just only been touched upon in the media. Each of them plays a pivotal role in Bush’s life and career and, as expected, some performances work better than others. Toby Jones’ Karl Rove is a coach to Bush with Stone insinuating that as clueless as Bush is with Rove's guidance he’d be even more clueless without it. Jones’ take on the character is interesting as he plays him as a know-it-all creepily lurking in the shadows waiting to impress everyone with his answers.

Richard Dreyfuss wisely doesn’t go for a full-on impersonation of Dick Cheney and instead inhabits him. But if we were giving points for how well he gets the mannerisms down he’d score high marks there also. It’s scary, but not as scary as Thandie Newton’s transformation into Condoleezza Rice, which is either brilliant or terrible depending on your perspective.You could argue all day and night whether Newton’s dead-on mimicry is even appropriate for this kind of film but there’s no denying she nailed it to the point where the real Condi wouldn't be able to tell the difference. She’s basically portrayed as a suck-up to the President.

Jeffrey Wright’s Colin Powell is the sole “the voice of reason” clashing often and memorably with Dreyfuss’ Cheney, particularly in one electrifying “War Room” scene. Bruce McGill, Rob Corrdry, and Noah Wyle have much smaller roles as George Tenet, Ari Fleischer and Don Evans respectively, popping in and out when the picture requires. What’s interesting is that the film presents those working for Bush as being just as underwhelming as he is, if not moreso (that’s particularly true of Scott Glenn’s Donald Rumsfeld). With all the clashing personalities, egos and agendas, Bush never really stood a chance.

The worst thing that could have happened to the younger Bush was his father being elected President because that set the bar even higher for him. He carried that resentment all the way to The White House and Stone surmises that he went into Iraq at least partially to prove that he could finish the job his father couldn’t. Cromwell’s performance is miraculous in that he never attempts to capture George Senior’s mannerisms or any of his physical characteristics, but instead focuses his efforts on conveying the elder President’s deep disappointment as honest and reasonably as possible.

We see how the elder Bush would feel let down by his screw-up son, but at the same time we see that he unintentionally helped cause the whole mess. His inability to communicate with him on the most basic level plagued them both, right up to and throughout his term in office. When the going got too tough in his son’s administration he couldn’t even bring himself to offer any advice, much to his wife Barbara’s (Ellen Burstyn) dismay. Ironically, W. always had something his dad lacked. Not ambition, but a fire in his belly and an obsessive desire to prove everyone wrong. It ended up taking him further than anyone expected, but also helped destroy him.

What shocked me most and I didn’t expect going in was how in control of the material Stone was. I expected the tone to be all over the map and if you’ve seen any of the trailers and commercials you wouldn’t be wrong to expect the film to be a political satire. While it definitely has its subtle moments of humor, Stone plays it remarkably straight. That these were the people making decisions of that magnitude and that’s what they said while making them is scary not funny. Cheney embodies it as Dreyfuss is given the best line of the film, laying out the timetable for when U.S. troops should get out of Iraq. What he says will send chills down your spine. There’s a scene of Bush choking on a pretzel at Camp David that on paper should be hilarious, but Stone makes terrifying. No giggles. You could hear a pin drop. It’ll be a while before you can eat pretzels again.

Last year I may have had some issues with the overpraised No Country For Old Men, but Josh Brolin definitely wasn't one of them. Here he delivers a career high performance that starts as great imitation but evolves into much more as the film slowly evolves with it. The more notes he’s asked to hit the more he starts to resemble Bush in both appearance and in spirit, to the point where midway through you realize it’s a full immersion. His work never comes off as parody, a huge feat considering the subject he was asked to portray.

I didn’t think the present-day scenes worked as well as the flashbacks to his early life mainly because they’re almost too uncomfortably “of the moment,” but I could be bias since I enjoyed watching the dynamics of Bush’s younger days so much. The last hour drags its feet a little bit and spins its wheels in hammering home the message that there were no Weapons of Mass Destruction. Dumb mistakes were made. That goes without saying. Like most of Stone’s film’s, its also messy but not to the point where I feel we were seriously shortchanged on anything so he could rush it into release before the election.

With all the jumping back and forth we're missing a full-fledged emotional connection with the man, although that’s almost fitting. Nor do we really form a full one with Laura, just about the only aspect to Bush everyone agrees they like. In just a few early scenes Banks shows us why, encapsulating everything we suspected she was. What she saw in him we'll never know. The term “Better Half” couldn't be more applicable. It’s a bit of a let down she doesn’t play a bigger role, but inevitable she’d have to take a backseat given the direction of the story. This isn’t Walk The Line.
W. is a return to form of sorts for Oliver Stone who took the easy way out with 2006’s World Trade Center. It wasn’t a bad film, but played with the resonance of a Hallmark greeting card next to something as powerful as Paul Greengrass' United 93, which was released the same year. There are elements in this that characterize Stone's best work like JFK and Nixon where he’s focusing on doing what he does best: pushing our buttons. This film isn’t going to change anyone’s mind about George W. Bush and I don’t think Stone intended it to. Whether you like the man or not you can't deny it's far better to attempt to understand him than angrily make ridiculous films like Rendition, Redacted, Lions For Lambs, In The Valley of Ellah, Stop-Loss or whatever other political garbage Hollywood feels like feeding us this week. That doesn’t accomplish anything. This does.

In the long run I don’t think it matters whether this was released now or 10 years from now because this almost feels like it was made in the future and time will likely treat it well. Those who went in expecting a train wreck won’t exactly be disappointed and neither will those who expected a serious examination of Bush’s psyche. On one level it’s a standard biopic, yet on another it isn’t at all. Everyone wins. But more importantly it gets us to feel something for him. I’m not sure if it can be categorized as pity, sympathy, understanding or even any of those but it at least it’s something other than hatred.

History will judge the 43rd President, not Stone. It would be nice to think that Bush now has time to contemplate the mistakes he’s made but if there’s only one thing to take out of this film it’s that he doesn’t think he made any. In his mind he did what he felt was right for the country, acting with unwavering, stubborn consistency the entire time. Whether we needed W. to be released right now is debatable but what isn’t is that you’ll have plenty to think about when it’s over.