2006 in review.

I saw about 74 movies that came out in theaters this year (believe it or not). You can figure out how much money that is; I really don't know or care, I'm pretty tired right now. I kept a list since the beginning of the year of what I saw in theaters, including ones that came out late last year, and ones that had come out on DVD this year but I didn't get a chance to see in theaters. So, here they are in order, for your enjoyment:

the white countess, bubble, fateless, the three burials of melquiades estrada, the matador, firewall, dave chappelle's block party, running scared, cache, neil young: heart of gold, v for vendetta, l'enfant, inside man, the devil and daniel johnston, thank you for smoking, lucky number slevin, slither, friends with money, the notorious bettie page, brick, united 93, mission impossible 3, art school confidential, lady vengeance, x-men 3, over the hedge, an inconvenient truth, cars, peaceful warrior, nacho libre, you me and dupree, a prairie home companion, the proposition, superman returns, clerks 2, pirates of the carribean 2, miami vice, little miss sunshine, talladega nights: the ballad of ricky bobby, jesus camp, the descent, snakes on a plane, beerfest, half nelson, the illusionist, idlewild, crank, mutual appreciation, sherrybaby, hard candy, the science of sleep, a guide to recognizing your saints, the room, little children, the departed, inland empire, marie antoinette, the prestige, saw III, babel, last king of scotland, borat, volver, come early morning, casino royale, the fountain, tenacious D in the pick of destiny, the queen, dreamgirls, the pursuit of happyness, children of men, rocky balboa, letters from iwo jima, and notes on a scandal. ha!

God, I love movies. I could drink them. But this year really sucked.

Here are my top 10 of the year....I guess. It's a bit rough, in my opinion, but I have to make one for newspaper regardless, so here you go. I'm definitley going to add the explanations for each of them underneath as I write the article, but here's the list for now. (Runners up are Hard Candy and The Notorious Bettie Page.)

1. Mutual Appreciation

2. The Departed

3. Inland Empire

4. Half Nelson

5. The Prestige

6. Dave Chappelle's Block Party

7. The Science of Sleep

8. Jesus Camp

9. United 93

10. Notes on a Scandal

Comments, questions...

MASH (1970)

"MASH" is my least favorite Robert Altman film, so far at least. It's not a bad movie by any means; it moves quickly and has some great acting, noticably because you can tell how much fun the guys are having. This is strictly a guys' movie--the entire thing is one sexist prank after another, with Altman's trademark claustrophobia-inducing zoom shots and overlapping dialogue being introduced here for the first time.

But the problem with "MASH" is that it's not very funny, and, unlike the other Altman movies I've seen, it hasn't revealed any deeper meanings or undertones several hours after watching it. Both of which are due to my narrow appreciation and knowledge of comedy and war psychology, respectively, and have nothing to do with the merit of the movie itself. But it doesn't matter, because I can say whatever the hell I want.

You know, one problem I have with people (ahem, AFI) labelling some movies as "one of the funniest ever made" is because what people find funny is completely subjective. Like, say, the people who never tuned into the TV show "Arrested Development" and watched "The War At Home" instead, letting a critically acclaimed series die a humble death. Personally, I think "Monty Python and the Holy Grail" comes close to being the comedy movie masterpiece, but who am I to judge something like that? No other movie this year made me laugh harder than "Beerfest".

But regardless of whether "MASH" is as hilarious as some people say it is, it's still a riot of sorts, and it's understandable why it was loved back in the day and why it will always be Altman's most commercially successful film. Simply put, it's not as weird as his other 70's films. But personally speaking, I just find those ones a whole lot more interesting.


Grade: B

The Dreamers (2004)

I'm not sure if "The Dreamers" is trying to reassure movie buffs like me, in that locking up three of our kind together in a Parisian complex results in some kind of kinky party. Or maybe it's a bad sign, in that becoming obsessed with movies pretty much fucks you up in the head.

Either way, I'm not convinced, and it's because I'm still not sure who this film is made for. Certainly not softcore porn enthusiasts, since I'm positive that director Bernardo Bertolluci ("Last Tango In Paris") has something else he wants to get in our heads here, even if Eva Green gets fully naked and mostly stays that way.

And when they're not re-enacting scenes from classic celluloid, this triangle of lovers (a brother, a sister, and an American) don't just have sex---they masturbate in front of each other, rub menstrual blood on each other's faces, recieve oral sex while dressed as the Venus de Milo, play another's favorite song full blast to piss them off, and one attempt to shave another's pubic hair---all for no apparent reason, leaving the viewer waiting for a resolution that never comes.

There's a single subtly important scene early on in the film that takes place at the dinner table, with the three soon-to-be-lovers and the siblings' parents, in which Theo, the brother (playing a stereotypically French badass) blames the father (a poet) for not signing a petition against the Vietnam war, reminding him of the most famous words he once wrote: "A petition is a poem, and a poem is a petition." The father snaps back, "I'm not that old, so you don't need to remind me of my own work," and disregards the son's next comment, when he admits he never wants to end up like his father. The dinner ends, the scene ends, the parents suddenly decide to take a vacation and leave the three alone for the week(end?) without a single word.

Maybe this is why the siblings are so rebellious and lost; their parents refuse to admit their shortcomings, and then leave them unsupervised. So I guess mom and dad are to blame here, although their presence feels like an unfinished subplot---even moreso when the parents return shortly before the film ends in an equally "wtf" moment.

You can take any number of things from this movie, like "Thirteen" before it and "Borat" after, which is also what makes it dangerous. Just like how so many promiscuous teenagers made fun of the former, and generally everyone in America (including me) died laughing at the latter, you could do the same with the overstated eroticism and ludicrousness of this film.

We don't need any more movies like this. It doesn't tell us anything about the gloriousness of cinema, it just shows us some stupid dreamers who can't help fucking everyone over.

Grade: D+

Casino Royale (2006)

Every once in a while you get to see a movie that felt like it was worth the admission. The last time I could say that was with "The Departed", "Inland Empire" (if it even counts). Generally, these movies tend to be around the 2 and a half hour mark, and the reaction afterward is mainly due to being overwhelmed by how long it was.

That's probably how I feel about "Casino Royale", although on second glance, it really is a well-made action/franchise movie, albeit one that doesn't really go too far, in a geographical sense. Sure, it begins in Uganda, jumps to Madagascar, and somewhere else, but when it's all over, you don't feel like it shifted between many different locations. The majority of the movie takes place in either a tropical resort, a poker room, or a construction-site chase sequence featuring a monkey-legged bandit that feels 10 minutes long, and is just as outrageous as you would expect. Overall, though, this makes for a less jarring, and more comfortable movie experience.

There's more to feel good about, especially the jaw-droppingly gorgeous Eva Green, who enters halfway through the movie as a confident accountant, and then swiftly, yet inexplicably, forgets her inhibitions and gives in to Bond the rest of the film. The things poker can do to women...

Speaking of poker, this movie has a lot of it. Early test screenings of the movie mentioned that the poker sequences were too long, and ruined the flow of the movie. That might be true, but to me, it made the movie a Bond movie about something more than just gadgets and one-liners, both of which this movie is mostly barren.

So you can call this a stripped-down Bond film--I wouldn't know by comparison, because I haven't really seen any of the others. I've stayed away from most action movies in the past. But with 2006 offering a solid number of enjoyable, decently made popcorn flicks that didn't make you feel like some braindead pre-teenager all over again, I'm starting to pay more attention.

Grade: A-

Come Early Morning (2006)

I might be wrong, but I'm pretty sure that the title of Joey Lauren Adams' directorial debut refers to Ashley Judd's character waking up in a motel room after a drunken one night stand, attempting to get the hell out of there before she dares wake up the oaf lying under the sheets. If so, that's pretty cool, I guess, except there's not much in the movie that explains such situations, unless you're willing to go into the Freudian aspect of it and say her distant relationship with her alcoholic father is the reason why she gets drunk and sleeps with every guy in the bar she frequents....but I'm rambling already.

I've seen this movie before. In fact, I saw it in a theater a month or two ago, when it was called "Sherrybaby", had less sex, more nudity, substituted the alcohol for drugs, and had a similarly depressing/where-do-I-go-from-here? ending. Not to say that those were better plot devices, but the movie did have actors who demanded screen presence (Maggie Gyllenhaal, Danny Trejo, Giancarlo Esposito), even though the story was cliched.

Ashley Judd can act, as far as I know, but this movie won't let her. Most conversations between her and other characters are filmed with shots cutting back and forth after each sentence, letting us glimpse a facial expression or two and nothing more.

"Come Early Morning", unsurprisingly, adds nothing to the female one-crappy-thing-after-another genre. Judd puts on jeans, goes to church, steals a jukebox, eats frog legs, and little more. The only interesting thing remaining about such movies is to watch the lead actress experience some sort of sexual awakening or transformation. In this case, it's when Judd's sober, and the camera lingers as her lover begins to teach her that sex is something meaningful, or even holy. But the scene ends abruptly, as it leaves Judd and the audience--as the now-apparent double meaning of the title implies-- with no opportunity to "Come".

Grade: C-