In Honor of the New Year, My Movie Wish List of 2009

In honor of the New Year, I have compiled a list of 2009 releases that I am truly excited to see. Everyone's talking about G.I. Joe and Transformers 2. Not so exciting to me (even though I'm sure I will see them on DVD, for Jamie's sake; he turns on Transformers every single time it's on cable). So, here is my list, in no particular order:

Where the Wild Things Are-Yes, the beloved picture book is finally being adapted into a movie. In the wrong hands, I wouldn't have any faith that it could be done. But the screenplay is by Dave Eggers, one of my favorite authors and the author of one of my all time favorite books, A Heartbreaking Work of Staggering Genius (if you haven't read it, go get it. NOW). It's being directed by Spike Jonze, who has a keen eye for the absurd (he was nominated for the Best Director Academy Award for Being John Malkovich, which was one of the most unique and most visionary films ever made). This is his return to feature film directing, which he hasn't done since the multiple Oscar nominee Adaptation in 2002. It is also Eggers first produced screenplay.
There hasn't been a trailer released yet, but stills are being posted online.

The Lovely Bones-Also a literary adaption, from the hugely successful novel by Alice Sebold. I'm pretty sure that half of the population has read this book. I read it when it was released and I loved it. It was something different and imaginative. The book is told from the point of view of Susie Salmon, a murder victim who is watching over her family and her killer from her perch in heaven. It sounds like it could be hokey, but it is far from it. It's a beautifully written story, equal parts heartbreaking and thrilling. Again, in the wrong hands, it could go terribly wrong. With Peter Jackson, director of The Lord of the Rings trilogy at the helm, I have faith. I think he may be just right for this film. I never would've approved of the novel being adapted into a film because the material would be too challenging to pull off. But if anyone can do it right, Peter Jackson can. With young Saoirse Ronan, already an Oscar nominee for last year's Atonement, cast as Susie, and Mark Wahlberg and Rachel Weisz as her grief-stricken parents, so far it looks like everything's been done right. I won't find out until its December release, but I have a feeling this may be one of next year's big awards contenders.

Friday the 13th-I had to follow up the literary adaptations with a junk food movie, which is definitely what the "reimagining" of the Friday the 13th franchise is. I don't expect class, good direction, or good acting. Although, I will say, the reimagining of Halloween that Rob Zombie directed two years ago did have those things (okay, maybe not so much class; you can't class up a movie where murders are committed by a pencil in the eye). I like horror movies. I don't know what that says about my psyche, but I do. I enjoy being scared. It's escapist fun, as long as you don't take it too seriously. I'm curious to see how this ends up. I can't help myself.

Star Trek-I'm a big nerd in many ways, but I am not a Trekkie by any stretch of the imagination. I know enough about Star Trek to get me by, but I'm not a fan. I think I've seen most of the movies, but I don't remember much about them (other than the earwig scene in The Wrath of Khan). Why would a non-fan want to see the new Star Trek movie? Three words. J.J. freaking Abrams. He could direct a reading from the phone book and I would watch it. This is where the nerd in me comes in. Anything that he is affiliated with, I will watch. For those of you who are not total geeks, J.J. Abrams is a sci-fi genius. He created my favorite television show of all time, Lost. If you don't watch it, I'll explain: the title fits what you feel the entire time you watch; completely, utterly lost. Yet the fact that I have never missed a single episode and never will tells you what kind of genius he is. He also created Alias, the TV show that put Jennifer Garner on the map. Before I was a Lost junkie, I was an Alias junkie. His most recent film was Cloverfield, the claustrophobic monster movie released early 2008 that was shot completely on handheld camera. He was behind the iconic shot of the head of Lady Liberty being thrown across New York. The guy has vision. Even though I don't know much about the Star Trek lexicon, I will be happy to let J.J. Abrams be my guide.

Whip It!- It can be pretty fun to watch women on roller skates beat the daylights out of each other, but it's not something I seek out. This film is about a girl who finds a way to deal with her boring life by becoming a roller derby star. I don't know a lot about roller derby, and never really cared enough to learn. However, I am curious to see Drew Barrymore's directorial debut. Not because of Barrymore, but because of Ellen Page from Juno, and Kristen Wiig, one of the funniest women to ever grace the stage as a cast member of Saturday Night Live. This film has the potential to grant a cult following, and with character names like Malice in Wonderland and Smashley Simpson, how can this not be great?

Jennifer's Body-Another horror movie, although this is classified as a "horror comedy." Jennifer's Body is Oscar-winning screenwriter/former stripper Diablo Cody's followup to Juno. Diablo Cody came out of nowhere, and came busting onto the Hollywood scene, looking completely out of place with her tattoos, Bettie Page bangs, and sarcastic, self-deprecating wit. No one could've predicted that she would become a little bit of a Hollywood darling. Following the success of Juno, studios were throwing themselves at her, trying to secure her next screenplay. Rebel that she is, she opted to blow off the pressure to have an Oscar repeat and chose to write a horror movie. Jennifer's Body is about a possessed cheerleader who starts offing male classmates, and her best friend who tries to stop her. Bucking conventional wisdom, Diablo Cody is sticking her tongue out at people who are questioning whether or not Juno was a lucky shot. Who cares? She knows Juno was lightning in a bottle, and has chosen to write what she wants to write. I'm sure it won't be Oscar material. But I don't care. Juno is one of my favorite movies, and I can't wait to see what happens with Jennifer's Body. Sidenote: I can't wait to see Diablo Cody's first foray into television writing and production, The United States of Tara, premiering on Showtime in January. Co-produced by Steven Spielberg and starring the always fantastic Toni Collette, it can't possibly be bad.

Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince-Come on, do I really need to explain this one? Other than the fact I'm still angry that the studio pushed the release of this film from November of 2008 to summer of 2009, there's really not much to say. There's a boy wizard, he has to save the world and stuff. If any of you don't know this, stop reading now. You have no business even reading movie reviews.

The Watchmen-This adaption of one of the most critically acclaimed and best loved graphic novels (for those of you who don't know, that's a fancy term for comic book) is in trouble. I don't know if it's even going to come out in 2009 now. There was a very public, very ugly lawsuit between Warner Bros and 20th Century Fox over rights to the film. In layman's terms, Warner Bros produced the movie, and after it was finished, Fox sued, saying they had first dibs on the rights to adapt the graphic novel into a film. On December 26, a judge agreed with Fox, and the film is in a state of limbo right now. Rabid fans of film and "comic books" are incensed, because this movie looks pretty killer. The film was scheduled for a March release, but it was announced today that Fox hopes to put the release on hold and continue to trial. Fox is refusing to settle, which makes the impending release date highly unlikely. In this one, the fans are the ones who are going to lose out. If you ask me, Fox had passed on the project for years because it was very difficult to adapt. But when they saw how well Warner Bros had done with their adaptation and how responsive audiences were to the trailers, they thought, "Hmmm...we should've jumped on that train when we had the chance," so they sued. I'm not saying they're wrong. If they had first rights, they had first rights. It's just a slap in the face to fans that Fox waited until it was finished to act.

Inglorious Bastards-I don't really understand the plot synopses I've read. It's some kind of war movie, and I will readily admit my ignorance of all things war-related. I'm a movie buff, not a history buff, okay? Plus, I think it will forever be difficult to take war movies seriously, thanks to the skewering the genre took in the brilliant comedy Tropic Thunder. This is on my list for one reason: Quentin Tarantino. It's no secret that I'm a big fan of his work. It's always bloody and it's always profane, but his writing ability is unsurpassed. Pulp Fiction and Kill Bill 1 & 2 are among my favorite movies. Tarantino invented a new kind of storytelling with Pulp Fiction, with a story that literally turned inside out. The beginning was the end, the end was the beginning. It's a love-it-or-hate-it film, and I am okay with people who tell me they just don't understand why this is my all-time favorite movie. I understand why there are people who hate it, but I won't be moved from the ranks of people who love it. Kill Bill was equal in its brilliance. Uma Thurman as the Bride (we don't find out her actual name until the end of Volume 2), dressed in a tracksuit, taking out hundreds of masked hitmen armed with only a samurai sword. Awesome. Both Kill Bill movies are iconic. The dialogue is great, the visuals are striking. Tarantino may be crazy, but most geniuses are. So I don't really care what the plot of Inglorious Bastards is. I know I will see it because I know I will see something I haven't seen before. Even when Tarantino pays homage to the films of different eras, it's unique. I can't wait to see this, no matter what it's about.

Mamma Mia!

I am a passionate fan of musical theater, and more than a little bit bitter that I wasn't blessed with singing ability. If it were up to me, I would be a Broadway star. Yes, ladies and gentlemen, I just confessed my deepest, darkest secret. I want to be a STAR. For any of you who have not seen my previous theatrical performances, I'm a decent actress. I'm not a terrible dancer. I am NOT a singer. There is a reason I have never been cast in a singing role, people. When I performed in the musical Chicago, the director cast me in the only non-singing speaking role. The lively film adaption of stage phenomenon Mamma Mia! proves that it really doesn't matter if you can sing or not.

I was fortunate enough to see the stage version of Mamma Mia! a few years ago at the Fabulous Fox in St. Louis. I have seen more musicals than I can count on my fingers and toes put together, and I can say beyond a shadow of a doubt that Mamma Mia! was one of the most enjoyable shows I have ever watched. People who know me well know that I am an obsessive fan of Rent and Wicked. As much love as I have for those musicals, they weren't fun to watch like Mamma Mia! At curtain call, the entire sold-out audience was up dancing and singing along (even my husband Jamie, who I'm sure will be mortified to learn that I shared that with everyone). It was a blast.

Mamma Mia! is a musical that uses songs by Abba to move the action along. The plotline is just as cheesy and fun as the music. It's about Donna, who runs a hotel in Greece, and her daughter, Sophie. Sophie is about to get married, but she wants her father to walk her down the aisle. The problem? She has no idea who he is. When she finds her mother's journal, she discovers that there were three potential fathers, all of whom she secretly invites to the wedding. They all show up, and of course, chaos ensues.

I was excited when I heard it was being adapted into a film. I became even more excited when I heard the cast announced. Meryl Streep as mom Donna, Christine Baranski and Julie Walters as her friends and former backup singers, Pierce Brosnan, Colin Firth, Stellan Skaarsgard as the potential dads, and relative unknown Amanda Seyfried from HBO's Big Love as Sophie. If performers of that caliber wanted to do it, what could go wrong?

Well, a lot. I have an issue with the casting, because clearly most of the performers were chosen for who they are, not how well they sing. I know it's a movie, but it's a musical. Singing ability should be a prerequisite. I was astonished to discover that the amazing Meryl Streep is not infallible. She can't sing a note. Pierce Brosnan makes her sound like Julie Andrews, though. Every time he sang, I found myself wondering if the fat pockets he got out of the deal made up for the embarassment he has to feel over his vocals. I would imagine he has given up on singing in the shower after hearing himself in the film. Amanda Seyfried is really the only one who is worth listening to. In addition to the singing, the choreography was pretty dreadful. The poor choreography mixed with the subpar singing should've ruined the movie.

Somehow, it really didn't matter that much. Mamma Mia! was still a blast. Watching actors who have no business being in musicals while sitting on my couch with a fever didn't compare to seeing it live with a giddy audience. Still, I had a good time with it. And so what if the actors sort of blew it? It seemed as if they were fully aware that they were miscast, and chose to enjoy it anyway. I know that some reviews were unkind. Some people downright hated this movie. It's a musical, and if you don't like musicals, you won't like this. It's hard to adapt stage musicals to screen. There are few that have done a decent job of capturing the experience of seeing it onstage; Chicago is the only one that stands out in my mind. If you don't like musicals, don't bother. If you do, accept the fact it's not going to be as good as a live experience. And go with it. Just enjoy it. And remember, "You can dance, you can dance, having the time of your life...." All together, now! "Dancing queen...."

Marley and Me

I want to make one thing very clear: Marley and Me is not the happy-go-lucky family movie it appears to be in the advertisements. My younger kids wanted to see it because they thought it was a kids movie, and fortunately, I knew enough about the best-selling book that it was based on to know better than to take them along. I didn't know much about the story prior to watching the movie, but I did know that it wasn't just a funny story about a misbehaving dog. In respect to those who had the unenviable task of trying to market this film to mass audiences, it would be hard to pinpoint what this movie really is in a 30 second trailer. I just want to make it perfectly clear, the trailer for this film does not do it justice. It is so much more than a shallow, silly "dog" movie.

Even though the title is Marley and Me, there is a lot more going on than just Marley the dog and the "me" of the title, journalist John Grogan. The film opens on the night of John's marriage to Jenny and follows them through the peaks and valleys of what is essentially a normal life, to an inevitable end that is easy to predict, but shockingly affecting nonetheless. It's hard to go into a lot of detail about the plot because the plot really is so...normal. This is basically a film about a man and his wife going through the cycles of life that most people really do experience. Marriage, career changes, children, and all of the sometimes unpleasant emotions that can come along with those things. In many ways, the only difference between their life and mine is the dog (and the high-paying, high profile jobs, but I'm going to pass up that U-turn down jealousy road). John and Jenny are accompanied down every path they take by the faithful and untrainable dog, Marley, who John initially purchases for Jenny to distract her from the quickening pace of her biological clock. This is a film about unconditional love and support, whether it comes from a human or an drywall eating animal.

Owen Wilson is not someone I would have chosen to play the role of a family man. I guess that's why I'm not a casting director, because it would've been a grave mistake to pass on him. He is a perfect fit for John, the family man who doesn't quite know how he got so lucky, and sometimes doesn't quite know if he can handle everything he's been given. Jennifer Aniston brings a sweetness to a character who could've been misrepresented in any other hands. She's an actress who has never shown a lot of range, but sits well on roles like this one. I don't know how well she would do with a meaty Oscar bait role, but parts like this are made for her. The two actors are believable as John and Jenny, two smart people with a deep sense of commitment to each other. The chemistry is there, whether laughing together in bed or trying to curb their frustrations with each other.

That brings me to one of the things that I liked the most, and hated the most on some level; I'm not saying my husband and I are as pretty as Owen Wilson and Jennifer Aniston, but there were some fights in the film that I know we've had. In my personal opinion (and this is a very personal and situational thing), this was one of the more realistic representations of marriage that I've seen on film. This movie showcased what committed relationships are really like. The mistakes and insensitivities of a working husband, the frustration and demands of an exhausted stay-at-home mom. And at the end of the day, the love that both still harbor for each other.

I only have one complaint about this film, which is rare for me. What were the filmmakers thinking, throwing Kathleen Turner into the mix for a cameo as a militant dog trainer? I can understand the need for the scene, and it was one of the better light-hearded scenes in the movie. However, her presence was distracting. Her appearance cheapened the movie for me, because there was no purpose. I spent the entire scene thinking about how bad she looks. Why have a celebrity give a poor cameo appearance in a role that could've been done much better by a talented extra? It was senseless, and it took away from the integrity of the film.

I can forgive that five minute abomination because this movie really was good. I went into it knowing that it wasn't my kind of movie. It's about a dog, for pete's sake! I'm not a dog lover. I don't hate dogs, but I definitely have never loved a dog the way John and his family love Marley. I also rarely cry at movies. This one required two tissues, and two minutes to collect myself after the credits before I was ready to walk out of the theater. I may not be a dog person, but I am a cat person. And the first thing I did when I walked into my house after seeing Marley and Me was pick up my cat Jack and hug him for a minute. So it's not just for dog lovers, after all.

Definitely, Maybe

Definitely, Maybe was advertised as a romantic comedy. If that is what the filmmakers set out to make, they failed. It's slightly lacking in romance, and quite short on laughter. That's not an insult. This is a decent film that fell victim to false advertising. Definitely, Maybe is an enjoyable, although mostly forgettable, film that wouldn't have stayed afloat if it hadn't been for a couple of small twists and some very talented female actors.

Definitely, Maybe stars Ryan Reynolds, known more for being Scarlett Johansson's new husband than for his acting career. Reynolds plays Will, the soon-to-be-divorced father of Maya, played by Abigail Breslin. During father/daughter bonding time, Maya asks Will to share the story of his relationship with her mother. He agrees, but there's a twist. He will tell Maya the story, but he will tell it along with the story of the two other major romantic relationships in his life. He changes the names of the women, and says he won't tell her which woman is really her mother. His three loves are played by actresses whose stars are rising, and deservedly so. Next big thing Elizabeth Banks as Emily, the girl he left behind when he moved to New York City; Rachel Weisz (an Oscar winner for A Constant Gardener, who has balanced between blockbusters like The Mummy and small respectable films), as the independent and smart Summer; Isla Fisher as April, the passionate and opinionated girl he meets while working for Bill Clinton's campaign. Naturally, at the end of the movie, we find out who Maya's mom really is. And naturally, there's a happy ending, but it's not necessarily the happy ending you expect.

One thing that slightly elevates this film above the typical romance schmaltz is the twist. It's a little corny, but it's also a little bit fun. I found myself actually interested in finding out which woman he married and fathered a child with, even if it didn't work out so well. As for the performances, I like Ryan Reynolds, but he's not an actor whose work I seek out. He's simply adequate. Abigail Breslin, who was one of the youngest Academy Award nominees ever for the clever Little Miss Sunshine, is a little too precocious for my tastes in this movie. There's nothing in this film reminiscent of her pageant routine performed to "Super Freak." I think that even the most talented child actors need good direction, and director Adam Brooks just doesn't have the necessary experience.

Actresses like the trio who play Will's past loves can overcome poor direction. Elizabeth Banks is strong in her few scenes. Rachel Weisz is a consistently solid performer. Isla Fisher is the one to watch. Known for her scene-stealing turn in The Wedding Crashers as the over the top sister-of-the-bride who stalks Vince Vaughn, she is subdued and lovable in this film. All of the actresses are good, but Isla Fisher is the one who deserves a break out starring role. But all three performances add depth to characters who could have easily been one-note.

An interesting sidenote about this movie is that it is one of the few movies that capitalizes on early 90's nostalgia. I know it wasn't all that long ago, but it's just now starting to appear on film. So many of the events in the movie revolve around Bill Clinton's time in the Oval Office. It's not key to the story, although Will's involvement in politics is key to his character. The political climate of the early 90's and the music of the era, including "Come As You Are" by Nirvana, play into the movie.

I personally am not a fan of romance on film. My tastes run towards the gritty world of Tarantino, and if I am going to go for romance, it has to be the classics. Nothing compares to The Philadelphia Story or Bringing Up Baby when it comes to romance. I never go into a love story with high expectations. The classics of the genre are arguably hard to beat. Therefore, I kind of liked Definitely, Maybe. It was not groundbreaking. It wasn't particularly funny, nor was there a whole lot of romance. I guess that may have been part of what I liked. Even though it ended on a happy note, it was an unexpected happy ending. I like it when a film does something even a little bit unexpected, especially in a genre of film that is filled with cookie cutter copycats. So, do I recommend this movie? Ugh...maybe. Do the women carry the film? Definitely.

The Happening

Ladies and gentlemen, it's official. M. Night Shyamalan is officially getting worse with every movie he makes. Most directors work their way up, slumming through a few turkeys before they reach their masterpiece. Shyamalan is working in reverse. His first film was the brilliant The Sixth Sense, which garnered an Academy Award nomination for best picture. It was an impeccable blend of horror and drama, and it reinvented the twist ending. He coerced Oscar-nominated performances out of child actor Haley Joel Osment and Australian actress Toni Collette, and brought Bruce Willis' career back from the dead, giving him credibility as an actor that he had never warranted previously. Shyamalan followed that with Unbreakable and Signs, both strong thrillers in their own ways, neither coming close to the quality of The Sixth Sense. Then came The Village, and it was evident that Shyamalan was losing his touch. There were some interesting concepts to the film itself, but all in all, it was one of the most amateurishly filmed movies I had seen. It was like watching a first semester film school project, before the lesson in lighting and composition. That was followed by Lady in the Water, one of the few movies in my lifetime that I hated so much I couldn't finish it. It was utterly horrible. I couldn't possibly begin to try to explain the plot, because there really wasn't one. Bad script, bad direction, bad acting. I thought for sure Shyamalan couldn't do any worse. I was wrong.

The Happening starts with mass numbers of people committing suicide. I'm surprised the screenings of the movie didn't have the same effect, honestly. Most of the suicides are committed in gory ways, a cheap ploy to distract the audience from how bad the script is. I don't know what emotion Shyamalan was trying to illicit, but I don't think he wanted people to laugh out loud while people were dying, which is exactly what my family and I did (my personal favorite occurred at a zoo; don't ask). I will say, the mass suicide plot could've possibly been taken somewhere interesting. Early in the film, there are a couple of visually striking scenes that garnered my attention for a minute. That was before any of the actors opened their mouths. I cannot for the life of me understand how this director can make talented actors turn in late-night-Cinemax caliber performances. Mark Wahlberg and Zooey Deschanel are actors who have a lot of strong performances behind them. So what the heck happened to them with this? They walk around the sets like they are brain-dead. It appears that the extras who were basically hired to come onscreen and kill themselves got the better end of the deal than the lead actors did. The best part of the movie was mocking the cheeseball performances with my family. It was like a midnight screening of The Rocky Horror Picture Show, with my teenagers, my husband and I yelling bad lines back at the screen.

I haven't even hit on the plot. It would be wrong of me to give too much away, just in case anyone wants to completely ignore my review and watch. So I won't ruin it, but I will say one thing. Spoiler alert: it's ridiculous. There's obviously something causing all of the suicides. You won't believe what it is. I assume Shyamalan was trying to make some kind of grand statement, trying to make this a bit of a message film. There's a message alright; this movie sucks. If I ever have to watch it again, I'm going to lay down in front of a lawn mower (& yes, that really does happen in the movie).

Four Christmases

Are you looking for a little Christmas cheer? Something to get you warmed up for the holidays, perhaps? If so, this is NOT the movie for you. On the other hand, if you want to watch a movie all about people who are selfish and unlikable, and if you want to see really good actors slumming, this IS the movie for you.

Four Christmases is the story of Kate & Brad (not his real name, as we find out in a not-nearly-as-funny-as-it's-supposed-to-be gag). They are a happily unmarried couple who have no desire to ruin their relationship with marriage, as they are both products of divorced parents. Every year, they forego the family Christmas gatherings and take off on vacation under the guise of doing charity work, to keep their families off of their backs. Naturally, this doesn't go as planned; if it did, there would be no movie. So the twosome is stuck with no other option but to visit both sets of divorced parents, hence the Four Christmases.

I am a big fan of Vince Vaughn. His grown-up frat boy humor & rapid fire comic delivery always works for me. In Four Christmases, he manages to make some of the bland dialogue less dull. But even he can't undo poor writing. He's an extremely likable actor who is having to work too hard. There's a bit of a meta moment during a Nativity scene, in which the character is basically doing what the actor is doing; trying too hard to connect with material that just isn't good.

I've been a fan of Reese Witherspoon since long before she was famous for being a perky little movie star. I saw her childhood acting debut, the little seen "Man in the Moon," when I was in junior high & I knew the minute she came on screen that she deserved to be a star. Then there was a her dark turn in the twisted but hilarious "Freeway" in 1996, and her actual star-making turn in "Election," which put her on the map for the general movie viewing public and garnered her a Golden Globe nomination. However, this movie knocked her down several notches on the acting totem pole, because her boredom and disdain for the material seemed to show through. And (I know this is a superficial complaint) her hair looked distractingly fake, like they threw a cheap Halloween wig on her.

The film wasn't all bad. The laughs were cheap, but they were laughs nonetheless. The supporting cast wasn't bad, especially Jon Favreau's truly funny turn as Brad's all brawn & no brain cagefighter-wannabe brother. I also really liked Kristin Chenoweth as Kate's cougar-in-training older sister; her helium-sucking voice fit the role perfectly. All of the big name actors who signed on to play the parents were typecast in parts they've all perfected to a science. Cranky Robert Duvall, hippy-dippy Sissy Spacek, and Mary Steenburgen as a cougar. Then there's Jon Voight, who seemed really bored, like he has in almost all of his post-70's films.

Overall, Four Christmases was kind of bummer. None of the characters were very likable. Brad & Kate are basically not very nice people (although the reasoning behind Brad's estrangement from his mom is understandable, in what is one of the few funny parts). Reese Witherspoon spends the entire movie crinkling her nose or tilting her head to the side to show emotions. She phoned in the entire performance, without a single sign of genuine feeling to be seen anywhere.

I entered the theater willing to sacrifice a little quality in order to have a few cheap laughs. I was hoping for more than I got, but the laughs I did get will suffice. Still, I wish the film hadn't been mired down with such bored performances and such a long stretch of seriousness. If there had been more laughs than whining from the lead characters, I may have left feeling a little bit more generous. But this is one Christmas movie that leaves me feeling like a Scrooge. Mistletoe, indeed.