Fixed the images. Dunno what broke, but I fixed it anyway.

I wasn’t slamming James Bond in general either, just kneejerk opposing an all-caps ‘ALWAYS’. There are counterexamples there, that’s all I was saying.

I’m of the opinion that spectacle for the sake of spectacle is pointless. I just got back from seeing The Imaginarium of Dr. Parnassus, and I couldn’t help comparing it to Avatar. Avatar is a tightly controlled, visually beautiful movie. TIoDP is messy, mumbly, weird. And yet, I loved it, because everything Gilliam was doing was in service of ideas, of making points, obscure though they may be. Avatar didn’t make me think once, except thoughts like “I’m bored,” or “Giant Robot Knife! Awesome!”

All right, at this point I’m just kvetching for kvetching’s sake.

PS: Seriously? The pacing? It’s a three-hour long movie that could have been done in literally half that time without sacrificing a thing.

@ChrisR You have District 9 very wrong. Christopher, the alien is very Humane. Wiikus, the human, is very Human. He’s well liked at work, and clearly a loving husband. But he’s also xenophobic, cowardly, elevated by nepotism (being married to the CEO’s daughter), afraid to confront real power (the soldiers and the gangsters) and revels in the little power he has. Up until the final moments of the film, his actions are driven entirely by fear and self interest – he wants to be completely human again, to rejoin his wife. He knocks out Christopher because he can’t face the idea of a 3 year delay and thinks he can fix himself at the mothership.

At the close, risking his life to give Christopher and avenue of escape, he quite possibly dooms the human race to annihilation by some future army of vengence-crazed aliens, yet we’re rooting for him because he’s finally acting humanely – the less human he becomes, the more humane he becomes.

Discuss the dichotomy between the reality of the human condition and our idealised model of it. Is “humanity” a concept that describes a set of behaviours rather than a strict biology, species, skin colour? 25 marks, recommended time 20 minutes.

Christopher is the hero of the movie, objectively. He sets the action in motion, he’s the one working to make things better, the one who shows compassion. But he’s a Prawn. So we stay with Wikus instead.

Wikus, who is weak, who is reactive, who is cowardly, who is entirely self-interested. He is not a pleasant person to spend time with. Focusing on him is kind of brilliant, because it builds the film’s racism into its very structure – Wikus is a human, so he’s our hero – but it also reduced my enjoyment of the movie, because I hated the little whiner so much.

Interesting to contrast that with In The Loop, which has a similar disconnect between “protagonist” and “hero”. Simon Foster is probably the protagonist, but he’s so ineffectual and weak that you find yourself rooting for Magnificent Bastard (and “bad guy”) Malcolm Tucker because at least he Gets Stuff Done.

District 9 was all right, but annoying at the same time. So that Wikus guy? He gets put in charge of the whole “evict the aliens” operation, but then is going door to door himself? What? He had absolutely no authority in his voice, his body language, or his actions. I had no respect for him. It didn’t make any sense, so the rest of the movie was ruined for me because of it. And he’s a bumbling idiot to boot.

*SPOILERS* Two other parts that caused a disconnect for me: 1) Near the end, after Christopher and Wikus get the “fuel” container, and are going down into the basement, Wikus decides to knock out the Christopher Alien…. why?? To what end? Christopher is the only one that knows how to fix Wikus… why knock him out and leave him for dead? WTF, does not compute! 2) A few minutes laster, when Wikus is in the power suit, he walks past Christopher, who is about to be killed by the mercenary guys. Wikus leaves Christopher to die (AGAIN), then has a change of heart for some reason and comes charging back to kill the army guys. Make up your mind you dumbass!! It would have been a better movie if it flowed better, or if Wikus’ actions made more sense I suppose. *END Spoilers*

Then again, he was turning into an Alien, and running on hardly any sleep, so I guess it makes sense for him to be acting crazy. Still… I wasn’t buying it.

And Barotte?

Maybe, but he’s shown a good sense of humor about himself. Watch his Simpson’s episode or read an issue of 1963. Well worth the effort.

I’m sad to say that all I got out of The Hurt Locker was the All Quiet On The Western Front moment in the cereal aisle, and I didn’t feel it was worth the rest of the time. Great acting, but it just seemed like a disconnected series of sketches to me. I get the isolation/fucked-upness theme, but that’s punched home with the one Hollywood scene in the film, where maniac explains everything poetically to his infant kid. Otherwise, all the screen time is there to tell you…that getting blown up and shot at in Iraq sucks…?

THE HURT LOCKER!!

Also Slumdog Millionaire came out this year in the UK, and I haven’t seen it but there’s a lot of love around for A Serious Man.

Jus’ sayin’

Man, I love that line. My friend and I spent half an hour after we saw Mr. Fox, trying to figure out why it was so great. I’d seen the movie before, and it still made me laugh out loud, HARD.

The other movie that made me laugh out loud was In The Loop. Which is a fun trick, because it’s also one of the most depressing movies I’ve ever seen. Malcolm Tucker is a god of creative invective.

I saw Let The Right One In the other day. Can someone explain to me what the big deal is? It seemed very pretty, very predictable, very slow. A much better (which is to say, weirder) for’n vampire movie this year was Thirst, which covers all of the same emotional bases as LTROI, AND features a vampire drinking from a comatose dude’s IV like a straw.

Good list, Tom.

I didn’t bother with Mr. Fox because the addition of clothes had me worrying that they would Beatrix-Potterify the story. But if it’s actually good I’ll certainly give it a look.

I read Watchmen and saw the movie and I think they both shine in different areas. The book is generally better, but unlike every other pretentious nerd in the world I’m going to point out that that’s because the book is ALWAYS better. Whoever said “Hallelujah” should be banned from soundtracks was right, but I’ll also point out that building-sized proto-hentai vagina monsters should be banned from comic books.

@Jason L: I first saw Up in 3D and then saw it normally and I’d say it gains nothing from being in 3D. And I’m enough of a Pixar fanboy that I’m going to personally think that no one at Pixar wanted the movie to be in 3D, it was just an unfortunate casualty of the fad going around.

As for Tom’s list, I’ve only seen four of the movies but I agree with your analysis of each one. Star Trek had a marvelous “Fuck you, clingy fans” feel that made the movie wonderful for the rest of us, District 9 combined an intelligent plot with whizz-bang action perfectly, and Up was Pixar’s usual standard of brilliance.

As for Watchmen, I bought and read the comic around the time the movie came out, do so roughly every three months and I still find stuff in it that I missed in the other readings. It is easily the best example of the source material being better than the movie because Watchmen works perfectly as a comic book. The movie was also good and worth seeing, but every person capable of reading the English language needs to read Watchmen.

Also, there’s significantly less blue wang and overly long sex scenes in the comic, so that’s a plus.

As for the film? I think Damien Lindelof’s (Lost, Star Trek) summary was best:

“Avatar hypnotized me. I’m not sure if it’s a work of genius or utter shit. Could it be BOTH?”

I’d certainly recommend going to see it – it’s about the only film I can think of that warrants the title “Event Movie”.

And therefore quite possibly the best animated movie of ALL TIME.

I’m usually charmed when films just come out and call their magic material Unobtainium. It was one of my favourite parts of The Core.

I saw Up in 3D, went in with good expectations but was anti-impressed by the effect. Seeing things as having an ‘actual’ size in real space always made them feel constrained and small to me, even when it was a twenty-foot-high face on screen. Even worse, they had to make sure we were getting our two bucks’ worth at all times so they kicked in the stereo effect in situations where you wouldn’t have stereooptic information in real life. Most conspicuous were the moments where they showed the house from a distance against the plateau; because they amped up the 3D it looked close and toylike and by contrast made the backdrop look, well, like a flat backdrop. The second problem is an implementation issue, but if Pixar of all people didn’t have the restraint to avoid it I’m not sanguine about the future. The first problem seems endemic, at least to me.

And I also want to say “any film with Tim Curry in it which came out this year” but honestly, Barbie and the Three Musketeers? That was his ONLY film appearance? Bloody hell. Ah well, Dragon Age makes up for it I suppose. Oh, and…maybe “Cramford”, 2.5 hours of victorian garbage, then all of a sudden everything awesome happens in the last 30 minutes. And even in his 5 minute long appearance he still manages to be scary as all hell.

I would say Tom didn’t do such a great job communicating what In The Loop is with that quote. But once you’ve seen it that really does sum it up quite well. I actually burst out laughing when I read it.

To use a sorta in joke example, a friend of mine had a feeling all video games were slowly going down the tube. Then he watched some footage of Bayonetta, and that game, for him, made him relize that good games are still being made. 9 is my movie version of that.

Avatar looked incredible but did have some quite horrible writing.

“This is what we’re here for: the Unobtanium.” Unobtainium!

“But sir, killing the indigenous people looks bad.” Yep.

“The Tree of Souls lies at the centre of the Flux Vortex!”

District 9 was three films rolled into one, but in a good ‘more value for your money’ way. It also had giant mechs, as did Avatar. Plus points for both.

For me, the film of the year was Up in the Air. Incredibly well written and George Clooney suits the role perfectly.

From your list, I didn’t see Moon, Where the Wild Things Are, Zombieland, In the Loop, The Fantastic Mr Fox, or Duplicity. Crikey. I thought Coraline was brilliant. I’m increasingly liking these “children’s films”. I think I just like Neil Gaiman.

I liked Watchmen and I read the comic. Don’t tell Craig though.

Roda: the chance encounter on the ice world was definitely the weak point. The director’s commentary says they had a scene explaining that which they now regret cutting, but it also summarises the explanation as the timeline trying to correct itself. No, idiots! The timeline isn’t trying to change itself back to the one you came from, because it doesn’t know who you are. Play Braid!

The incredibles may not be as dark or intricate. But it is better. That is all.

If you want a genuinely good film about a world where Superheroes are outlawed, watch The Incredibles. I only saw this for the first time recently, and it’s fried gold.

Moon is my personal pick of the year, but with Star Trek and District 9, it’s been a bumper one for Sci-Fi. I’m seeing Avatar tonight, so no opinion there. Yet.

Other than that?

You’re probably right.

In 5 or 10 years the CGI won’t be considered good anymore. All of the arguments for it will go out the window.