my top ten films of 2008

So its 22 days into the New Year, so it must be time to reflect on the best movies I saw in 2008. I wanted this list to be a little bit different from the mainstream critic's lists, so I'm limiting it to movies released in 2008 that I actually saw.

This criteria excludes most of the usual fodder for these lists because I live in a small market for films, and I've not seen most of the "Oscar movies." I'm also going to exclude those that have seen already this year (Gran Torino, The Curious Case of Benjamin Button) that technically were 2008 releases.

So without further ado here we go.

Honorable Mention - My Kid Could Paint That - honorable mention goes to my favorite documentary I saw this year that qualifies. This would have gone to King of Kong: A Fistful of Quarters, but it had a 2007 release.

Having sold fine art for five glorious months on the Funship Ecstasy, I heard a variation of the line "my kid could paint that" Heck when I first laid eyes on Parkwest's catalog of Joan Miro's work I sure as hell thought the same thing. So It intrigued me that a four-year-old girl was producing gallery quality work. This film's greatest strength is actually its unintended commentary about the nature of documentary film making. The producers set out to make a completely different film, but found their direction changing as the truth was revealed about their subject

On with the real list.

10. Blindness - this was one of those films I saw and said, "Wow, that was powerful, too bad its not a movie I can recommend to anyone." Most people don't want to see such a raw film. The depiction of the breakdown of common decency and values strikes a little too close to the realm of feasibility. I actually felt that the community constructed might have been very similar to that which sprung up in the Superdome during Hurricane Katrina.

9. Blueberry Nights - Wong Kar Wai's films have always struck me as beautiful, and this was his first fully English language film. I think it came in under really high expectations, but it was still a fantastic piece of film making. Norah Jones shows decent acting chops to go with that voice.

8. Pride and Glory - This film gets a nod because it triumphed over what I call genre-staleness. I've seen WAAAY too many dirty cop movies, and with Infernal Affairs/The Departed setting the bar so high in this arena, I didn't expect too much from this one. I was pleasantly surprised.

7. In Bruges - I really cannot wait to see writer/director Martin McDonagh's next film. The acting, and the writing is really spot on, and more people need to see this film.

6. Mamma Mia! - I've said before that I'm a sucker for musicals, so this is no surprise. This film makes the list despite having only one passable male lead singing voice, and an absolutely god-awful performance all-around from Pierce Brosnan. Amanda Seyfried needs to be cast in more films.

5. Iron Man - All about being second best. This would be the best comic book adaptation in many other years (Chris Nolan cancelled that . . Robert Downey Jr. killed it (Tom Cruise has reportedly wanted this role for years, and I'm glad he never got it); and his career resurrection (complete with an Oscar nom for Tropic thunder today) takes a backseat this year to Mickey Rourke. The moderate success of Ed Norton's Hulk sets the bar high for the proposed merge for the Avenger's movie, but I won't get my hopes up for that until they're actually filming.

4. Forgetting Sarah Marshall - My favorite comedy of the year (although it was almost derailed by Role Models late in the game; and Pineapple Express sorta overpromised/underdelivered). It has everything, a homoerotic Jonah Hill, plenty of full frontal guy time, weak-yet-attractive female leads, and lots to quote.

3. The Visitor - I'm SOOO psyched that Richard Jenkins got an Oscar nomination for best lead actor for this film. Its tough with a film that was released so early in the year, but this film is a solid rental. Everyone can find something about the movie to love, and Jenkins is fantastic.

2. Wall*E - The best animated film in recent years. Makes a lot out of very little dialogue. Great social and environmental commentary that's not preachy or harsh. And its for everyone. I feel terrible that I waited so long to finally watch this one.

1. The Dark Knight - a bit of a cop out to list this ahead of Wall*E, but I'm biased for Christopher Nolan. Didn't think it was possible for him to improve so greatly on Batman Begins. It ran nearly three hours, and I would have gladly watched three more (and I went to the midnight showing). I fully intended to judge Heath Ledger's performance very harshly, and it was still amazing. The only argument I can support against him being the best supporting actor of this past year is that his performance is so powerful that he really doesn't support anyone. He outshines everyone, every second that he's onscreen. I always felt he was a great actor ever since Monster's Ball. This just confirmed it.

So there it is. This year has started out pretty good. Can't wait to see Slumdog, Milk, etc. but that was 2008.

i was on the news

So I stepped outside the house today to admire the snow we had, and a Wavy News Jeep happened to be driving by. It drove up, and the reporter and the cameraman hopped out and conducted a little impromptu interview with me. And wouldn't you know it, parts of it got edited into their little Snow in NE North Carolina segment. Obama's not the only one getting on camera today.

Here's the video:



I kinda cringed when I realized that I used the word anomaly. Shoulda kept it simple.

these people do exist?

How can a red-blooded American go through life without having seen Star Wars?

Encountered this hilarious video clip today, and just thought I would share it. Reminds me of my friend Tom in college, who told me he had not seen the Star Wars movies. Shocking, I know.


Star Wars: Retold (by someone who hasn't seen it) from Joe Nicolosi on Vimeo.

Enjoy your weekend :)

say it ain't so, John

So this week all us Atlanta Braves fans across the country have yet another reason to feel slighted this offseason. After 21 years in a Braves uniform, John Smoltz has decided to sign a contract with the Boston Red Sox.



Its a very tough pill to swallow I'd imagine for most Braves fans to see such a longtime player turn his back on the organization that has done so much for him and especially its fans. The only thing that would have made it worse would have been if he would have signed with the Yankees.

With the exception of the acquisition of Javier Vazquez in early December, Frank Wren in his second offseason as the Braves GM has been getting the proverbial shaft left and right. I would say that Smoltz's decision to leave is the very definition of kicking a man while he's down. Not trading for Peavy, missing out on AJ Burnett, getting swindled by Raphael Furcal's agents, and now this bombshell.

The contract Smoltz has agreed to, guarantees him $5.5 million up front, with incentives that could increase his earnings for the year up to $10.5 million. The contract the Braves offered him, guaranteed $2.5 million upfront, with anywhere from an additional $5 million to $8 million in performance based incentives, depending on who's report is more accurate. It also seems that the guaranteed portion of the contract kicked up to $5 million if Smotlz spent just 60 days on the active roster.

Smotz has earned a little over $130 million over the course of his Hall-of-Fame career thus far with the Braves. And unless his now ex-wife (who divorced him this past year after 16 years of marriage) took him to the cleaners, he shouldn't really be hurting for money.

So if its not a money-related move, then that leaves the two possibilities that he felt disrespected by the Braves organization, or he merely wants to take the best shot available at getting back to the World Series and winning another ring.

The disrespected line I'll buy, but its a slippery slope on both sides. However you slice it; Smoltz is a huge injury risk. He's 41 years old, and coming off a repair of his lab-rum and rotator cuff. After the Braves have had to eat large contract's like Mike Hampton's due to injury, I can understand their trepidation in guaranteeing Smoltz's contract for the 2009 season. To be fair their offer gave Smoltz a chance to earn quite a bit, it just didn't guarantee it.

So Smoltz feels that $2.5 million less guaranteed is a slap in the face? What about the previous $130 million you've earned jackass? What about the $8.5 million you got to ride the pine while injured in 2000? What about the $14 million you got for a whopping 28 innings pitched last year? Why Smoltz are you willing to turn your back on the Braves and your fans for a measly $2.5 million guaranteed?

On the other hand, its tough to realize the Braves are willing to let him slip away over such a small amount. I feel that they gave him the proper amount of respect with their offer while at the same time protecting the organization in the case that he doesn't return from injury well. Yes the organization still has lots of payroll to spend this offseason, but it would be better spent finding a more durable frontline starter, or a power-hitting left-fielder to protect Chipper Jones in the lineup.

Tim Kurkjian's recent article outlines how Smoltz is an unparalleled fierce competitor, and it makes sense to argue that Boston has a better chance to win the World Series next year than the Braves do. But here I thought John Smoltz stayed with the Braves for so many years out of loyalty. Apparently not. Smoltz was only ever granted free agency in 1996, and in 2001. 1996 was the Braves last trip to the World Series, and 2001 their last trip to the NLCS. I gag a little to think that Smoltz has wanted out of a Braves uniform for a long time.

I'm now glad that I decided a couple years ago to get a Chipper jersey rather than one of Smoltz's. But Chipper is apparently not happy with the way things were handled; hopefully they do him right when the time comes.

God I hope the Braves make it back to the World Series this year (as improbable as that may be) and Smoltz gets to watch from home.

Thoughts on Will Smith's latest dramatic turn

So despite all of the negative press it's generated to this point, I decided to see the latest Will Smith drama Seven Pounds the other night. Normally this type of film is right in my wheelhouse. Its a film that deals with controversial issues, and is built upon a sizable plot twist, and gives steady, but not easily discernible clues to its viewer throughout the film. I like having to work for it.

I have very rarely been let down by Will Smith. Its no mistake that Hollywooder's consider him to be the #1 most bankable movie star. Of the 14 films of his that I have seen (not including Seven Pounds), I have thoroughly enjoyed 10 of them. And among those favorites are his serious films in addition to his bread-and-butter action flicks. On the periphery of those 10 are my somewhat questionable acceptance of I,Robot and Hitch. In both those cases I overlook serious flaws in both films, due almost solely to Smith actually elevating those films singlehandedly.

I was initially excited to see Seven Pounds because it reunited Smith with Italian director Gabreile Muccino, who directed Big Will, to his second Best Actor Oscar nomination two years ago in The Pursuit of Happyness. I was naturally confused then as this years Oscar buzz began to pick up and Smith's name was never being mentioned. The cryptic trailer combined with the movie's title did little to assuage my fears. Nor did nearly every review I read from the major critics, who scoffed at the instruction they were given to "not give away the film's major twist." Most simply said "This film's not worth spoiling anyway."

So on New Year's eve my friend Chris offered to spoil it for me before I saw it, and I took him up on it.

Here's what I was able to deduce prior to talking to Chris:

Seven Pounds is most likely a direct reference (I say most likely because the film never actually makes the reference) to William Shakespeare's Merchant of Venice. The titular character, Shylock demands that his penniless debtor repay instead with a pound of flesh. This has trickled down into the mainstream like many of the Bard's master works. The most resonant pop culture reference that came of my mind almost immediately was in David Fincher's movie Se7en, when in John Doe's depiction of the deadly sin Greed, he instructs his victim to repay his "debt" with several pounds of flesh.

Based on the trailer Will Smith's character, Ben Thomas, is man of extraordinary wealth and means, who seeks to use these means to better the lives of several people, including Rosario Dawson, and Woody Harrelson playing a blind man.

I don't think I can fully launch into my thoughts on the film from this point without saying SPOILER ALERT. DO NOT CONTINUE READING IF YOU HAVEN'T SEEN THE FILM AND INTEND TO.

******************************************************************************************

As it turns out Ben Thomas is an extremely tortured soul. The film begins with him calling 911, to report his own suicide before he actually commits the act. The major impetus for his desire to kill himself is hinted at a few times in the first act, but only fully revealed in the film's resolution. Thomas was involved in a horrific car crash that killed seven people including the love of his life. Thomas was irresponsibly using his PDA while driving, and thus feels he must pay the penance for these seven deaths (hence he owes seven pounds of flesh).

Thomas decides to take a very literal slant on this debt. He begins by donating one of his lungs to his brother who was a chronic smoker (one pound down). This selfless act inspires him to donate the rest of his usable body parts, to atone for the lives he took in the accident. If the premise stopped here, I could truly buy this as a noble act, but I admit it would make for a fairly uninteresting movie.

Thomas decides instead to seek out the "perfect" recipients for the remaining pieces of his body/life. This immediately turns the inherently selfless act of organ/charity donation into a selfish act. The religious underpinnings of this judgment are enormous, as Thomas is undoubtedly playing God. He invades the privacy of likely hundreds of people on donor lists, in order to judge whether these people are worthy of receiving his 'hallowed' organs. Who he is he who decides to receive his charity?

He chooses to donate a piece of his liver to a social worker. He then uses these first two recipients of his charity, to select his next benefactors. He steals his brother's IRS credentials to gain illegal access to tax records, and enlists the help of the social worker to find a battered mother of two, to whom he gives his opulent beach home. Why would he choose to dramatically impact the lives of so few when could have just as easily sold his home, and donated the proceeds to a charity that would impact thousands of lives.

He makes two rather innocent choices for his next two donations, choosing to donate a kidney to a deserving high school hockey coach, and bone marrow to a cute kid.

His final two donations involve the most elaborate of his schemes, and further cloud the lines of selfish/selfless and right/wrong. He selects a meek blind man Ezra Turner (Harrelson) to receive his eyes, and a single woman Sarah Posa (Dawson). He spends the most film time getting to know Posa, which makes since as it seems to be the most important of his seven pounds of flesh that he intends to give. As he does comparably meek favors for Posa (weeds her backyard, repairs her ancient printing press) while he determines she is the true recipient for his heart, Thomas endears himself to Posa, and the two of them fall in love. He makes a last ditch effort to see whether Posa can survive without his heart, but then commits suicide, with his best friend/lawyer having explicit instructions to be sure that the Turner and Posa receive his remaining two pounds of flesh.

To complain about his method of suicide is fairly pointless, because is the grand scheme of things it pales in comparison to the ethical debates raised by the movie. Thomas has admired a jellyfish since childhood that was described to him by his father as the deadliest animal on the planet, and he decides to place one in a bath of freezing water to kill himself. From one vantage point, he doesn't actually die until the moment he reaches the hospital, which makes his organs the most valuable. But also wouldn't the poison from the jellyfish also render his heart (the most important organ in the whole equation) useless?

I also find my evaluations on the actors and director to be inconsequential to ethical debates. Ben Thomas is set up early on in the film as a very caustic character. He is unflinchingly mean and judgmental. Even knowing what his character was up to, I still felt that the director Puccino gave his lead an unnecessary uphill battle. Smith I felt was out-acted by his character. With a few exceptions, he merely one-tones it through most of his emotional scenes. Dawson, on the other hand was a glimmer of sunshine, giving one of her strongest performances ever, and showing she is capable of great things, and if she's given a shot at a good role she could be in line for some end of the year hardware for sure. Just not this time.

This sort of movie sets itself up to be over analyzed to death, which I normally value very highly. As a rabid contrarian, any movie that sparks hearty debate is usually aces in my book. But based on much of the public response to this movie, many people do not find fault with the actions of this films protagonist. Which I feel automatically vilifies anyone who finds fault with his actions.

The two people with whom I saw this movie both cried their eyes out. One of them was even watching the movie for a second time. Needless to say I found it slightly awkward based on my quibbles with the film overall. Its a natural thing, and I've found that I've cried more often in powerful movies in the recent years, just not this time. I may have had something smart-ass to say if someone cried watching 27 dresses, but not this time. And nothing can top my first tearjerker... I cried my eyes out when Luke Skywalker burned his father in his funeral pyre at the end of Return of the Jedi. I was five and it was his father for Christ's sake.

OK no more tangent... back to the show.

Suicide, anyway you slice it, is a ridiculously selfish act. Those who love you are greatly affected by your loss, and can often blame themselves for your decision to end your own life. This is one of the main reasons I believe that suicide is a crime in most Western societies. Thomas's lawyer/best friend is visibly destroyed by knowing of his friend's plan to kill himself, and that's just one person. And I was annoyed that Thomas allowed the connection to be established between himself and Posa, given his overarching intention. He inserted himself into her life, knowing that he would be dramatically removing himself eventually. The movie skirts around this issue by emphasizing Posa's close relationship with her new heartbeat, insinuating that he never really leaves her.

So Ben Thomas suicide is supposed to be viewed as noble because he has carefully selected the most suitable recipients for his heart and eyes? By determining who receives his last two pounds of flesh, Thomas has in effect sold his organs. It sets a dangerous precedent to allow someone committing suicide to designate to whom his organs should go. Its one small step away from someone choosing murder someone else for their vital organs in order to save someone that they love.

Ultimately I don't want to feel empathy for someone who commits suicide. This is the same reason I vehemently dislike the movie Blow. I didn't want to feel sorry for the man responsible for 60% of the cocaine introduced into the US.

Wow that went longer than I thought. I apologize to anyone who is still reading. Just had a lot of these ideas rattling around. Combined with the book I'm reading (Jon Krakauer's Under The Banner of Heaven; which is about the people, in this case Fundamental Mormons, who commit violent and heinous crimes in the name of God) I just felt the need to purge some of these ideas. Perhaps I'll blog about he book next once I finish.