Best of the Decade Part I

With the decade coming to a close we’ve decide to get wistful and each take a look at our ten favorite films of the past 10 years. We will continue to check out some of the new releases, over the next couple of months, but as Hollywood goes into a relative off season, we’ll be counting down our best of the decade, each taking two at a time. This week we each talk about our number ten and nine films.



Ryan: My countdown begins with 2002's About a Boy (PG-13). Directed by Chris and Paul Weitz About a Boy is the modern tale of the unlikely bond between a rich unmotivated bachelor and a geeky heartfelt teenager. What sets About a Boy apart from most of its contemporaries is the movie's pitch perfect tone. It's a film with humor but it's not a comedic farce. It is also a film that deals with some heavy ideas (suicide) but it's not a dark dramatic film. About a Boy captures an authentic slice of life and presents a story with comedy and drama (and everything else in between). The movie is sentimental with it's themes of the importance of a family and the needing of meaningful relationships but it's translated in a manner that the audience can relate too. Additionally, while Hugh Grant never materialized into this era's Cary Grant, he does deliver a strong and winning performance in the movie. In some regard the film does play to his strengths but Grant strikes gold for crafting a character that--despite his negative traits--the audience has no problem rooting for. All in all About a Boy has matured into a modern classic.



Andy: Number ten for me is Knocked Up from 2007. The 2000s were a pretty good time for comedies, with really strong work coming from a few different directions. Will Ferrell had a nice run and some of Ben Stiller’s movies from earlier in the decade were very strong as well. But no one was bigger in the decade that super-producer Jud Apatow. Apatow directed just three movies during the decade, but The 40 Year Old Virgin and Knocked Up were both elite comedies: the kind that is actually a really well made movie as well. Either of them could have made my list. Both are surprisingly honest looks at the lives of real & believable people, but Knocked Up stands out in my mind for a few reasons. It is a little less gimmicky and feels a little more authentic than most comedies. It’s not afraid to get a little serious, and Katherine Heigle’s fine performance is a testament to the fact that comedy can work very well along side serious acting about serious topics. The writing is simply top-notch, with a father-son scene between Harold Ramis and Seth Rogen being one of the most touching moments in a movie I’ve seen in the last ten years. Ultimately Knocked Up is genuinely funny, very sharply written, and just as importantly, it feels like it covers a topic that had not been done very well in a movie for a long time.


Ryan: Number nine on my list is the James Bond reboot, Casino Royale (2006). What's utterly amazing about Casino Royale is that it shouldn't have worked at all. It bucked the successful formula of the previous (and monetarily successful) Bond flicks and the head scratching decision in casting Daniel Craig seemed like a peculiar decision. But the final product exceeded everyone's expectations. In one iconic swoop Craig became this generation's James Bond. His cool performance laced with coldness and detachment not only captured a part of the Bond mystique that was lacking but it also reflects the roughness and uncertainty of our times. Casino Royale succeeds not just as the best pure action movie of the decade but it enhances the mythology (while also deconstructing it) of the Bond franchise in a completely fathomable manner. Casino Royale didn't reinvent the action flick for this decade but it transcends its peers by being an action movie with a legitimate cinematic bravado.






Andy: My number nine goes all the way back to the year 2000, with Kenneth Lonergan’s You Can Count on Me. I’ve always been a sucker for a good, straight-forward drama, and no movie this decade has done it better than You Can Count on Me. The film flew somewhat under the radar as the rookie effort by playwright Kenneth Lonergan (disappointingly, he hasn’t made another until Margaret comes out later this year). The film centers around the relationship between a sister (Laura Linney) and brother (Mark Ruffalo) in a small town in New York. The relationship is complicated, and the two leads, both perfectly cast and doing the best work of their careers so far, are consumed by the tension around it. It is at times uncomfortable to watch it feels so much like real people living out their tragedies in ordinary and complicated ways, that it becomes both depressing and uplifting at the same time. Lonergan framed some tragic and beautiful scenes, while allowing the script and the performances take center stage. This film works so well that one can only hope the wait for Lonergan’s next film has been worth it.




That’s all for the countdown for now, as we will return with another look at a current movie next week before resuming with numbers eight and seven.

"Where the Wild Things Are" Movie Review

This week we take a look at the highly anticipated adaptation of Maurice Sendak’s classic children’s book Where the Wild Things Are (PG). Acclaimed writer Dave Eggars worked on the screenplay, while indie-film darling Spike Jonze directs. The story is of a boy, Max, who runs off from home and ends up in an imaginary land where he is the king of a small band of monsters. Catherine Keener and Max Records star in the film, with voice talent being lent by an ensemble headed by James Gandolfini, Forrest Whitaker, Chris Cooper, and Catherine O’Hara.

Ryan: Most of the time when literature is adapted for the big screen the story gets streamlined to fit the standard running time of most feature films. But when the text of a given work is only ten sentences then what one has is the rare case of a work needing expanded to fit the length of a feature film. That's the case with Where the Wild Things Are. Overall Spike Jonze has delivered a faithful adaptation of Sendak's book, while at the same time expanding the universe and themes of the narrative. But with that said I don't see the movie reaching the same classic status of the children's book.

Andy: Turning a short children’s book into a feature-length film can be bad news for lovers of the book (The Cat in the Hat, The Polar Express), but the team assembled for Where the Wild Things Are is just quirky enough to capture the spirit of the book. There are a few big changes (Max runs off instead of being sent to his room), but most of the difference are surprisingly subtle expansions of what happens after Max sails through the days, month, and year. Make no mistake, there is a lot added that was not in the book, but most of it is ambiguous and atmospheric, adding to the overall mood more than the story.

Ryan: Jonze's fleshing out of the story works to make the book into a successful movie but in doing so it also prevents it from being as iconic as the book. I never thought I would say that a ninety-four minute-long movie is too long but that's exactly what I'm going to say. Where the Wild Things Are, the movie, would have been much more of a stronger film if it was around ten to fifteen minutes shorter. Unfortunately the movie gets ever so slightly bogged down at times and it undermines the imaginative spontaneity of the narrative.

Andy: I’ll agree that the movie was a little longer than it needed to be. The middle portion of the movie drags just a bit, which is definitely funny to say about a movie so short. But there’s nothing wrong with a runtime of 88 minutes or so, especially when your source material is children’s literature. The other major complaint that some may have about the movie is its lack of a clear plot. While this didn’t really bother me, as it seemed to keep with the spirit of the book, I can see how it would be troublesome for many people.

Ryan: Although I didn't find Where the Wild Things Are quite as solid as it could have been it's still a better film than most of the movies that are currently playing. Jones has created a fanciful world that looks incredible on screen. His eye for bringing this film alive is commendable. Also hats off to Max Records for bringing the character of Max alive as well. Making the performance of Max work was no easy task as the character itself, under the wrong hands, could have failed to resonate with moveigoers.

Andy: This movie has grown on me in the few days since I first watched it. The more I think about it, the more I like it. When Max begins to interact with the different monsters, the implication seems to be that these different personas are intended to represent his interpretations of people in his life, or perhaps of his own psyche. This makes the movie a bit of a riddle – the type of riddle that gets better the more you think about it.

Where the Wild Things Are may not be for everybody, but its ominous mood and captivating visuals keep with the spirit of the book enough to earn it a B+.

"Couples Retreat" Movie Review

The latest comedy from Vince Vaughn and company is the romantic comedy, Couples Retreat (PG-13). In the film four couples venture to an all-inclusive resort that specializes in couple therapy. Needless to say hilarity ensues. Rounding out the cast is Kristen Bell, Jason Bateman, Kristin Davis, Malin Ackerman, Faizon Love and John Favreau.

Ryan: It's normally not a good sign when one has to make qualifying statements when describing a movie's value. But that's the case with Couples Retreat. It's just one of those films that if one's in the right mood for then it might satisfy one's tastes. But then again it might not. All in all I found Couples Retreat to be a mediocre rom-com that's entertaining at times but ultimately brings little to the table. I'll defend the film to the point that it is not as bad as many critics were making it out to be but it's certainly far from being a memorable movie as well.

Andy: It is entirely possible that Couples Retreat is the quintessential mediocre romantic comedy. It has four different couples to play around with, while putting them fantastically prefabricated “couples skill building” sessions. What follows is so predictable and cliché-ridden that it is at times tedious. This comes from the writing team that brought you 1996’s Swingers. While that film dealt in clichés as well, it had an urgency and a heart that is sorely lacking in Couples Retreat.


Ryan: What's frustrating about Couples Retreat is that it should have been a better film, especially considering the talent involved. Almost all the main actors involved in the film have had success with either comedies and/or romantic comedies. Consequently one would think that the talent in the movie would produce a strong film. But that's just not the case. The movie is not an outright mess but it lacks polish.

Andy: I agree that there were times where it felt like this could have turned into a much better movie, but it really feels uninspired from the writing right through the performances. It is not horrible. It does have a few pretty good moments. It is a really safe date movie. But it is not interesting, consistent, or funny enough to really be considered a success.

Ryan: Even though this is far from being anyone's best work in the film there were a few laughs in the movie. Vaughn's not on his A-game in the movie but he does deliver a few hits and his banter with Favreau still works. (But make no mistake—this movie is not Swingers or even Made for that matter). The normally solid Bateman doesn't really do a whole lot and it's hard to make any criticism (positive or negative) with the female contingency because they do not have a lot to work with. So what I'm saying is that Vince Vaughn can still make me laugh even in a movie that offers very little else.

Andy: The lack of material for the females does pose a problem as well. The movie is pretty clearly coming from the male point of view, which is fine, but it doesn’t really tell us anything remarkable or new about what it’s like to be a man in a difficult relationship. Instead the movie opts to try to please everyone, and if that’s the goal there should be more depth given to the female characters.

Couples Retreat is a little lazily executed, but could still work as an adequate date movie. Final grade: C-.

Colts Recap Week 5

Another late night televised game. . .another victory. The Colts worked over the woeful Tennessee Titans on Sunday night, 31-9.

The Good:

Peyton Manning continues his MVP season by throwing for his fourth consecutive 300+ yard game. He is just completely locked in. And when he does make a mistake. . .he then goes out and more than makes up for it. He threw a pick in the first quarter and then went on to complete his next14 passes in that first half. Austin Collie continues to gain favor with Manning and I think it's beginning to look like that when Gonzo comes back (and assuming that he's healthy and ready to play) Garcon is going to be the odd man out or maybe more specifically the fourth wide receiver in the rotation. Contrary to popular belief in the national media Gonzo is more comfortable and has had better games when he's on the outside and not in the slot. But anyway Collie is looking great. Hats off to the defense for shutting the Titans and their running game down. I had thought Chris Johnson was going to have a strong day (as I played him in a few fantasy leagues) but he was held in check and I'll take that. It's beginning to look like the Miami game was just a fluke (and I hope that is the case).

The Bad:

As a Colts fan you've come not to expect much from special teams. Basically. . .don't lose the game. Thankfully that didn't happen on Sunday night but there were some cringe worthy moments. When your punt returner calls for a fair catch it's smart not to bump into him as he's trying to catch the ball. And also for some reason our kick return guys like to run into people instead of missing them. I can't even remember the last time a kick or punt was returned for a touchdown. But as far as I'm concerned I'm satisfied with the return game if they just don't turn the ball over.

The Ugly:

Not really much to say here until I read on Monday evening that Peyton's knee was sore (from a cheap shop from Kyle Vanden Bosch). Obviously that's a cause for alarm especially when it's the knee that he had surgery on last year. But Caldwell and Polian didn't see to concerned about it on Monday and the fact that Manning played the rest of the game is a good sign that there's nothing seriously wrong with it.

It looks like the bye is coming at the right time.

"Zombieland" Movie Review

This week we watched the zombie apocalypse comedy Zombieland (R), the first major film from director Ruben Fleicher. Jesse Eisenberg plays the film’s narrator, known simply as Columbus, as he attempts to survive the world after a virus turns everyone into zombies. He eventually teams up with three other survivors, played by Woody Harrelson, Abigail Breslen, and Emma Stone.

Ryan: I'll concede that zombie movies, in general, do not do much for me. Needless to say I didn't have high expectations going into watching Zombieland. Sometimes that's not necessarily a bad thing as Zombieland proved to be a quite entertaining flick. It's not a movie for everyone but it does have broader appeal than the typical zombie movie. It's a good balance of humor, action and horror and the result makes for an amusing film.

Andy: I was also very skeptical of Zombieland. Zombie movies have just about reached the overdone level of vampire movies, so even one that intends to be tongue-in-cheek seemed risky. The risk paid off, as Zombieland is good for reasons that have nothing to do with the zombies. It is clever, fun, and somehow comes across as both surprisingly subtle and richly self-indulgent, sometimes in the same scene. Such contradictions seem like they should weigh the movie down, but in Zombieland the rules are a little different.

Ryan: Zombieland is just one of those genre films that simply works. It's absurd but it stays within the confines of it's own rules and agenda. It doesn't try to say more than it needs to and it doesn't aspire to be anything more than a zombie comedy. I give major props to Ruben Fleischer, the director, for crafting a film that satisfies fans of zombie/ horror comedies as well as those other moviegoers that tend to stay away from those types of movies. He's not reinventing the wheel with the movie but his fresh take on the sub-genre is applaudable.

Andy: You have a pretty good idea of what you are getting into within the first five minutes of the movie. Eisenberg’s voiceover begins to explain his basic survival rules, with each rule appearing on the screen as it comes up. Then the opening credits begin with a series of super-slow motion, meticulously detailed scenes of zombies attacking in every-day life. It is the first of a few well-played scenes of decadent slow-motion throughout the movie, with each scene adding to the movie’s high quality aesthetic.

Ryan: Also in Zombieland's favor is its cast and that starts with Woody Harrelson. I was under the false impression that Harrelson doesn't make many movies anymore, but after scanning his resume I would amend that statement by saying that he doesn't make many relevant movies anymore. What I'm saying is that with the right material, Harrelson can deliver memorable performances and consequently one can strike this performance up in Zombieland as being one of his more notable outings.

Andy: Harrelson does lead the way in the cast of four. His performance is perfectly executed tough-guy bravado, but it is nuanced with a tough of depth that is necessary for any truly great performance. The other three players all do an admirable job, but Zombieland goes nowhere without Harrelson.

Zombieland is an unexpectedly fun and well executed movie that easily earns a B+.

Colts game 4 recap

I had a little different perspective with this game as I attended it with The Big A. With an open roof and great seats it was a perfect day for some football. And the Colts delivered in a big way with a rousing 34-17 win over the Seattle Seahawks.

The Good:

I'm beginning to sound like a broken record but how can one not start with Peyton Manning. This was his fourth consecutive 300 yard passing game and he is simply locked in. He's spreading the ball around. . .and getting comfortable with the new guy's. Pierre Garcon had a couple more big catches and Austin Collie grabbed a highlight worthy touchdown at the end of the first half. The running game again seemed competent and the defense (for the most part) held Seattle in check. I did not expect to see Dwight Freeney on the field (with his strained quad) but not only did he play but he had a sack and a couple more quarterback pressures. I'm not convinced that it was a good idea to play him but I guess if he's capable of playing than one should play him.

The Bad:

Again not much to say here. Special teams allowed Seattle to get an on-side kick (in the fourth quarter) and the defense let the Seattle offense score a few late touchdowns. I wasn't too concerned because it was basically garbage time but if I were to be critical I guess it would be nice to not have a let up at all but that's going to happen.

The (not so) Ugly:

Edgerrin James returned to Indy for the first time since he and the Colts parted ways. Most people realize, including the parties involved, that the decision to release James didn't surprise anyone when it did happen in 2006. I thought it was class act by the Colts organization to publicly recognize--during the game with a video montage--James's contribution to the Colts. I know I was on my feet cheering for James. It was cool that James reciprocated the gesture by acknowledging the crowd and their cheers. As the screen proclaimed, James will one day be in the Colts Ring of Honor (and on a separate subject. . .the Hall of Fame as well).