Best (and most fraudulent) trailer of the decade...

Rememeber our first glimpse of Christopher Nolan's follow-up to Batman Begins? With little fanfare, Disney had dropped this fascinating trailer into our laps, promising a duel between two 19th century magicians. One, Hugh Jackman, was a virtuous illusionist. The other, Christian Bale, seemed to enjoy playing with darker magic. Was he an evil magician? What was his astounding lightning-filled trick that Jackman proclaimed was 'the greatest magic trick I've ever seen'? Was Bale a genuine dark wizard, fooling the audience into thinking that it was all an illusion while possessing real magic? The stage was set for a battle royale between good magic and evil magic. No so much...

Of course, if you've seen the film, you know that the trailer to The Prestige is in itself an illusion. It sells a pat good vs. evil story using editing that is so clever it may qualify as magic. Nearly every scene is in the film and every piece of onscreen text is accurate. But the narrative that the 155-second preview spins is a blatant falsehood . It is also the most exciting trailer I saw all decade, the rare preview that presented a movie that I knew nothing about and instantly made it tops on my must-see list. The film itself is a much murkier and far more complicated puzzle that is a wholly original kind of masterpiece. The Prestige is one of my favorite films of the last ten years, and the initial trailer, while itself a slight of hand, is my pick for the best trailer of the decade.

Scott Mendelson

If Crash really is the worst film you saw in the last 10 years, then I envy you.

I'm not the first person to notice this, but there seems to be a chorus brewing calling Paul Haggis's Crash the 'worst film of the decade'. Really? Worst film in all of the 2000s? Worse than Catwoman or One Missed Call? It seems like this is a case of several film bloggers saying 'look at me... I picked an Oscar-winning movie as the worst picture of the decade!' But let's give them the benefit of the doubt and assume that it's an honest choice on their part. Heck, my pick for the worst movie of the decade (Enchanted) is one that is generally popular but whose philosophies I find abhorrent. The articles linked to basically condemn the movie because it's not an accurate reflection of all race relations in all of Los Angeles. But that's not necessarily a fair comparison to make.

2009 in review - Best trailer of the year: the preview that ruined the movie (and not in the usual way).

I've seen Star Trek twice now. I will concede that the film was far more entertaining the second time around, and that I missed certain nuances of Kirk's arc (like the idea that Kirk acts with logic while Spock acts with emotion for much of the second half of the film). Frankly, I was so put off by the obnoxious kobayashi maru sequence that it colored my perception of him for the rest of the picture. I still find Eric Bana's Nero to be lacking in anything resembling gravitas. I still hate that the film basically ends with a shootout and a chase scene. I still contend that the third act is a mess, with future Spock basically dictating how the rest of the story should unfold and how to achieve it. And the idea that the crew of the Starship Enterprise should still take shape like we remember it, even in this alternate timeline, reeks of manifest destiny (why must James T. Kirk end up captain in this continuity?). Ironically, that last issue was actually dealt with in the best Star Trek movie of all, Galaxy Quest.

Still, I concede that part of my initial disappointment with Star Trek came from breaking my own cardinal rule - being displeased that the movie wasn't the film I wanted it to be, rather than critiquing the film that played out in front of me. I wanted THE Star Trek film, but I got merely a Star Trek film. I wanted something that was every bit as epic, mythic, Campellian, and breathtakingly powerful as the second trailer. What I got was merely an entertaining introductory space adventure, a B-movie with amusing characters, occasionally clever dialogue, and A-level production values. But if I admit that my expectations were colored by the film's marketing campaign, I must also admit that the second trailer (released in early March of 2009) was a wonderful piece of filmmaking, a soaring, emotionally-charged epic in 135 seconds. Star Trek may not have been the best film of the year, but its trailer easily stands as 2009's best coming attraction. As for the producers of the film itself, they've reignited a 45-year old franchise, reaped record grosses, and won over new fans in the geek and non-geek community alike. For the sequel, I still dare them to do better.

Scott Mendelson

Until time allows my crack at all of that 'best of decade' stuff...

Alas, brutal work schedules and (very minor but time-consuming) family illnesses have kept me from doing the whole 'best this and that of the decade'. At this rate, I'll be lucky to shoot off a best-of-2009 essay before 2011. While I'm intending to at least toss a few essays out there as the new decade begins, I thought I'd share the comprehensive decade-in review pieces that Kyle Leaman wrote in the twelve days leading up to Christmas. Each day, he tackled the 2000s in one category or another, ending up with a pretty thorough list that's worth a gander. Kyle runs a site called 'The Part-Time Critic', and he was pretty much the first honest-to-goodness fan of Mendelson's Memos during my first summer of full-fledged publication. In the end, it's just one man's opinion and I disagree with his choices (he shamefully omits Meet the Robinsons in the animated category) as often as I agree with them (he likes Akeelah and the Bee as much as I), but he did the hard work that I didn't, so I thought I'd share his insights.

The most overrated films of 2000s.
The most underrated films of 2000s.
The best action sequences of 2000s.
The best dramatic sequences of 2000s.
The best guilty pleasures of 2000s.
The best foreign films and documentaries of 2000s.
The best animated/family films of 2000s.
The best action films of 2000s.
The best dramas of 2000s.
The best horror films of 2000s.
The best performances of 2000s.
The best films of the 2000s.

I'll do my best to toss out my thoughts on the decade after it's over and a certain someone is back in preschool during the workday.

Scott Mendelson

2009 in review - The Runner-Ups

Before I get to my obligatory 'best films of the year' list, I'd like to take a moment to run down a list of films that are worthy of mention outside of the very best of the year. Some of these films are great pictures that missed the top-ten. Some are surprisingly good pictures that would otherwise have no business on a 'best of' list. Some are simply movies that I felt like pointing out for one reason or another. Enjoy...

The review of Nine that I would have written had time allowed...

I make a point not to pick on the attractiveness of actors or actresses, but otherwise this Nine review by N.P. Thompson at "The House Next Door" is 100% in sync with my own thoughts. An opening excerpt:

"What makes Rob Marshall’s Nine so peculiarly bad is its sheer self-congratulation. We’re incessantly told how important, how fascinating the director Guido Contini must be, and we as viewers are expected to take this on faith, but never once does Guido (Daniel Day-Lewis) do or say anything even remotely intriguing. The movie has no real subject; it’s proudly about nothing. Not the arid nothingness of a Van Sant movie, but a boring sort of Condé Nast nothingness."

Yeah, what he said. Sometimes a fellow critic expresses your own feelings so perfectly, the only thing to do is link and credit accordingly. The only thing I would add is that the razzle-dazzle sexiness feels so forced and artificial that all of the actors involved actually exhibited more sex appeal during the rehearsal montage that played over the closing credits. For the record, I have not seen Broken Embraces (the other film he reviews), so I did not read that particular critique.

Scott Mendelson

Chris Nolan's Inception gets a second trailer.

Still next to no plot, but plenty of interesting imagery, star-billing for Leonardo DiCaprio, plus cameos from Ellen Page, Ken Watanabe, Joseph Gordon-Levitt, Lucas Haas, Tardy, and Cillian Murphy. I didn't notice any glimpses of Michael Caine, Marion Cotillard, or 'he's the killer!' Tom Berenger (if this were a TV crime procedural, I would have just solved the mystery). This one comes out July 16th, 2010. Nice pick, since that's been Warner Bros' 'kill everything in sight' box office weekend since 2007. Worked for Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix, The Dark Knight, and Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince. And yes, that's the same weekend that Harry Potter and the Deathly Hollows part 2 comes out in 2011. So history will likely repeat itself and we should see a boffo opening, possibly one of the top openings ever for a 'completely original' property. I'm just trying to stay relatively spoiler-free for the next seven months.

Scott Mendelson

Avatar's best moment (hint - it has nothing to do with 3D special effects)

As expected, as James Cameron's Avatar continues to hammer the box office, blockbuster backlash has settled in almost before the ink on those rave reviews has dried. While blockbuster backlash is a common thing (quick... find anyone who still admits to loving Independence Day or even Return of the King), the speed in which the 'oh, it's just about effects' talk has become mainstreamed is a little surprising. The standard line is now 'oh, the story is bland and the character development is non-existent'. But, as we all know, the mega hits, the ones like Jurassic Park, Lord of the Rings, The Dark Knight, or Spider-Man, made their money on the strength of everything but the effects. With the arguable exception of Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen (a $400 million-grossing anomaly that no one particularly liked), you can't generally make it to mega-hit status without connecting to audiences on some kind of emotional level. Jurassic Park wowed audiences with the dinosaur effects, but it kept people around because it was a viscerally thrilling little horror film. Lord of the Rings promised awe-inspiring mass-battle scenes, but also delivered rich performances and an emotionally powerful narrative. Spider-Man got audiences in the door with gee-wiz webslinging adventure, but they stuck around because the film took the time to develop all of its characters, from the multifaceted Norman Osborne to the genuinely guilt-ridden Peter Parker. Did anyone even talk about the technical aspects of The Dark Knight? The movies that do more than flame out after their opening weekends are the ones that do more than show us the biggest and best in special effects technology.

Avatar leads the charge in biggest-grossing total weekend in box office history. (12/27/09)

So many notable records were notched this weekend that I'm not sure where to begin. So, for the sake of expediency, let's just do a list for now.

The biggest three-day weekend of all-time, at $263.9 million.
Avatar ($75.5 million) - Biggest second weekend of all time. Smallest dip (-1.8%) for any movie opening over $42 million. Tenth-smallest drop for any super-wide release. Biggest Christmas weekend ever. Tenth-fastest to $200 million.
Sherlock Holmes ($62.3 million) - Biggest Christmas opening-weekend ever. Fifth-biggest December opening weekend ever. Second-largest opening weekend not to be number 01 (behind The Day After Tomorrow's $68 million Memorial Day launch).
Alvin and the Chipmunks 2: The Squeakuel ($48.8 million) - Eighth-biggest December opening weekend. Fourth-biggest opening weekend not to be number 01.

Movie decade in review poll (courtesy of Hot Blog's Crow T. Robot)

Hot Blog commenter 'Crow T Robot' posted a great little poll regarding the decade in film. Since I'm filling it out in Poland's blog, I thought I'd share my answers with you as well.