Originally Reviewed – 2/8/2010

For me, January is one of the best months for movies. While many fans yearn for the thrills of summer blockbusters, I always like getting a chance to see as many prestige movies as I can before the Oscars. The problem with this is that many films get over-hyped as the Oscar buzz gets louder and louder. One of my favorite films from last year, Slumdog Millionaire fell to victim to this…the movie was great, but it wasn’t the life changing event the buzz was making it out to be. Crazy Heart, especially the performance of Jeff Bridges, has fallen to that kind of buzz. Would the film live up to it? Read on to find out!

Written and directed by first timer Scott Cooper, Crazy Heart is the emotional, at times humorous and inspirational story of a broken down country singer, played by Jeff Bridges, who in touring the many bowling alleys and dive bars of the Southwestern United States, tries to rebuild his crumbling life. Along the way he encounters a young reporter, played by Maggie Gyllenhaal, her adorable son and his protégé who’s now more famous than him, played by Colin Farrell. The cast does a nice job of keeping the story moving but the performance of Jeff Bridges is the shining light of the film and keeps the film from slipping into mediocrity.

As far as Jeff Bridges is concerned, this is truly one of the landmark performances of his career. While many critics have been comparing Bridge’s hard drinking, hard living character to last year’s The Wrestler, to me there is no comparison. Where Mickey Rourke was essentially playing an extension of himself, Bridges reached out and created a character with true emotional depth. The character of Bad Blake, while seeped in the depths of alcoholism, womanizing and a career going nowhere, is a sympathetic one. Bridges balances his character’s cocky western swagger with a surprisingly sweet side that enriches the film as a whole. Bridges more than deserves his Best Actor Golden Globe and will most likely win himself an Oscar come February.

The rest of the film does a fine job of moving the story along, which, while it’s a touch thin, holds together thanks to the fine performances of the cast. The dialogue is crisp and witty, the direction tells the story in a well paced manner and the cinematography captures the beautiful vistas of the Southwest with grace and beauty. The music in the film is also noteworthy as it’s truly excellent and evocative in a way that only old school country can be.

In the end, Crazy Heart more than deserves the buzz and accolades its been receiving since its release last month. Despite a thin story and a less than believable relationship between Gyllenhaal and Bridges, the strength of the Bad Blake character and the man behind him elevates this film to must see status.

Score – 80%

Originally Reviewed – 2/8/2010

To be fair, we’ve gotten to a point where Robert Downey Jr. can do no wrong. After revitalizing his career with Iron Man and getting an Oscar nomination for Tropic Thunder, Downey has been on quite a roll as of late. Enter director Guy Ritchie, whose career arc matches Downey’s to a certain degree. After a few disappointing films, Ritchie needs a strong one to get his career back on track.

So what better way to do so than mix the charm of Robert Downey Jr. with Guy Ritchie’s kinetic filmmaking style in a reboot of a classic franchise. The result is Sherlock Holmes, an imperfect but highly entertaining action / adventure film that turns the thoughtful sleuth into an ass kicking, swashbuckling detective that’s more Pirates of the Caribbean than the classic character.

In the role of Mr. Holmes, Downey essentially plays the same character he does in Iron Man, giving the usually stoic character a bad boy jolt to go with his logical mind. The combination worked in Iron Man and it works in Holmes but I hope Downey isn’t typecasting himself, as he truly is an excellent character actor. The other side of the duo is Jude Law, playing the more traditional Dr. Watson in a part that essentially has him sighing at Downey’s behavior and chiming in witticisms when the script allows. Law plays the part adequately but he doesn’t have much room to maneuver in playing the straight man to Downey’s high octane Holmes. Still, Law does a fine job with what he has to work with.

Unfortunately, neither Downey nor Law has much dramatic room to work with in a script that files from one action scene to another without too much meat in between. The moments of detective work offer some nice surprises and “aha!” moments, but the bulk of the film is spent fighting minions, dodging band saws and destroying shipyards. That being said, the action is one the film’s strongest features with each scene full of excitement, thrills and moments of hilarity that really move the film along. Guy Ritchie’s electric style comes on full force in these scenes that are well choreographed and very enjoyable.

The rest of the films direction works just fine in moving the story along, which involves dark magic and political corruption in Victorian England. The story, while very far fetched in some moments, serves the main characters well and gives us a chance to see Holmes and company unearth the mystery in an interesting setting. The film also features very nice cinematography, especially when the camera sweeps over landscapes and half finished landmarks.

All in all, Sherlock Holmes, while doing little to capture the quiet charm of the original character, is a vibrant and exciting film that features excellent action and great acting by Robert Downey Jr. Long time fans may hate the souped up version of the classic character, but I felt enough of the original was kept intact to make this truly Sherlock Holmes not Iron Man 1.5. Ritchie may not have another Snatch on his hands, and it’s nowhere near the level of this summer’s Star Trek, but as far as big budget action films go, this one is well worth the price of admission.

Score – 70%

Originally Reviewed – 2/8/2010

Just as a quick background check, I used to travel for a living. In 2006, I spent 216 nights in hotel rooms in various parts of the country, usually for four to six weeks at a stretch. Traveling for a living, while it’s an ever changing life, still has moments grounded in routine. How early you need to get to the airport, what type of amenities required for hotel stays, even down to what type of shoes you wear to breeze through security are all dictated by the experience of business related travel..

Imagine then my excitement when the trailer for a film directed by the always great Jason Reitman (Thank You For Smoking, Juno) staring George Clooney as a jet-set road warrior first came out. Luckily for me, the film did not disappoint as Up In The Air is a thoughtful, well written, and finely acted affair that should get more than it’s fair share of buzz this coming awards season.

Up In The Air is the story of Ryan Bingham, who travels around the country as an out-sourced firing expert. Along the way, he meets his female counterpart, expertly played by Vera Farmiga, as well as a newcomer to the company who travels with him to learn the ropes, played by Anna Kendrick. All three of the leads do an exceptional job with the characters, giving each one an emotional depth to go with the genuinely funny moments. Reitman’s films are often dark comedies featuring unlikable protagonists that you secretly wish you could be like, but Up In The Air is a much more balanced affair. While the characters don’t lead “normal” lives, you can’t help but admire their conviction to their life decisions, despite everything they miss out on in the process.

George Clooney in particular does a great job in the lead role. Clooney has played the cool, confident character before, but never with this kind of arc or depth. The character of Ryan Bingham goes through quite a journey in this film, but never once do you feel the feelings are forced or sacrine.

Up in The Air is also one of the best written films of the year, with a script that teems with a healthy dose of dark humor as well as more serious fare. To be sure, this is a comedy at its core, but there is enough emotion to make the funny moments even more memorable. The film is also has a very nice look to it, making it an all around pleasure to watch. If you’re looking for a film that provides humor, drama and even a touching scene or two in a perfectly balanced package, Up In The Air will not disappoint. Where Thank You For Smoking felt very forced at times and Juno overdid it on the quirky / cutesy factor, Reitman found his balance in this, his best film to date. Sure to be an Oscar nominated film and highly recommended.

Score – 90%

Originally Reviewed – 2/8/2010

On my way out of the Claridge Theater in Montclair, the only place within 50 miles that’s even carrying this film by the way, a couple of college age guys were walking behind me, commenting about the movie. They both agreed that it’s no wonder the film isn’t being carried anywhere and “there were a few cool parts, but it was soooo sloooow.” While I can’t agree with their overall analysis, there is one thing that’s very evident in John Hillcoat’s The Road: The apocalypse is nigh and, yes, it’s going to take it’s sweet damn time.

The Road is the film adaptation of the Cormac McCarthy’s epic novel of the same name and chronicles a father and son (Viggo Mortensen and Kodi McPhee respectively) who, after a an unknown apocalyptic event, is traveling south in a barren American wasteland a least a decade after. Before I continue, be aware that I may reference the other post apocalyptic film released recently, I Am Legend as they are similar in set up, but polar opposites in theme, scope and style. Let’s just say, if I Am Legend is a rock concert, The Road is a beautiful sonata.

One of the first things you notice when this film starts is how beautifully the disaster is shot, and with about half of the film being long shots of father and son walking through waste, it sure as heck better be. No worries in that department though, as this is how I always envisioned the end would be. Where I Am Legend is all lush vegetation and badly CGI’ed mutants, the world of The Road is sparse, chilling and unnerving. The world isn’t just ridding itself of humans, it’s rotting from the inside out. What makes the sense of dread even more palpable, is how you never quite know how the world got into this state. This takes the focus off of the horror of the devastation and puts the attention squarely on the relationship between Mortensen and young McPhee.

The father / son relationship is where the film truly shines and separates itself from the standard end of the world type fare. The disaster is merely a setting for what really is a character study of a father and son pressing on together in the most impossible of situations. Both McPhee and Mortensen turn in award worthy performances that pulse with true feeling and emotion. Towards the end, the film starts to tilt towards melodrama with over-emotional results, but by then I was so invested in the characters, I gave the film a pass. The flashback scenes between Mortensen and Charlize Theron, as Mortensen’s wife, also leave something to be desired as they seem thin and undeveloped.

In the end, though, The Road is a patient, thoughtful and very emotional film that showcases excellent performances by the male leads. The film isn’t all sap and sadness as there are moments of genuine fun as well as graphic scenes that show how depraved “the bad guys” have gotten in this world of non-plenty. The majority of the film, however, is a frightening, sad and unrelenting view of two people trying to survive in a world gone to waste. While the film does move at a glacial pace, the end of humanity as we know it shouldn’t have to be a massive explosion or a swarm of mutants. Sometimes it’s more evocative to just watch the world simply wither away.

Score – 80%

Originally Reviewed – 2/8/2010

Winner of a few Grand Jury Awards at Sundance and another at Toronto, Precious is the intensely emotional story of an overweight and illiterate 16 year old named Precious who suffers insults, molestation and abuse while living in the mean streets of 1980’s Harlem. And that’s all from her family.

Yikes…

While the premise has all the makings of a bad Lifetime movie, director Lee Daniels has directed a wonderfully balanced film that never sugarcoats the pain Precious suffers yet gives her many opportunities to dream, to laugh and to rebuild her crumbling life. It’s this tricky balance of melodrama, genuine comedy and moments of hope that allow the viewer to stomach all the intense moments.

On the acting front, both leads do an excellent job with first timer Gabby Sidibe playing the titular part and comedienne Monique playing her abusive mother. While Gabby does a great job in portraying Precious, Monique steals the show playing a varied and interesting character that is despicable and at the same time pitiable. Her performance should get her some looks for a Best Supporting Actress Oscar come February and I wouldn’t be surprised if she walks away with it. Amazing for someone who’s known more for her stand up than her acting chops. The relationship between the two is intense with many moments that will make you gasp and is not for the faint of heart. Their relationship reminds me a bit of Grey Garden in their codependency, only where Big and Little Edith quibble about cats, Precious and her mom are throwing frying pans.

The supporting cast does a fine job of coloring the world Precious lives in and is headlined by Mariah Carrey as a tough social worker and Paula Patton in an excellent turn as Ms. Rain, a teacher who takes a special interest in Precious. The other characters do a nice job, with the exception of Lenny Kravitz as the male nurse whose screen time is wooden and seems forced.

The direction of the film is also fantastic with Daniels offering ample time for fantasy, daydreams and light hearted moments to go with the despair. The editing of the film is also noteworthy as Daniels fills the film with quick, jagged cuts that keep the film looking fresh and interesting. The editing style also keeps the viewer on their toes, further adding to the overall feeling of tension. For those of you who may be avoiding this film because of the “depressing” nature of the subject matter, be consoled in that there is enough balance here to keep things moving.

When it’s all said and done, Precious is an excellent film that shows a woman in an almost unthinkable situation and how she tries to claw her way out of it. This film is almost a lock for a Best Picture nomination and should not be missed if you enjoy intense real life dramas. Highly recommended.

Score – 90%

Originally Reviewed – 2/8/2010

In the interest of complete objectivity, I am not, what most people would call, a Trekie. For me, the TV series is a complete and total mystery; hell, I’ve never seen that damn Tribbles episode people rave about. That being said, some of my fondest memories revolve around the Star Trek films and those memories always involved my dad. There he would be, after a long day (and sometimes evening) of work, sitting in the basement in his rocking chair with his bowl of ice cream watching Kirk and company gallivant across the cosmos. He loved Star Trek and it was something we always watched together.

When my dad passed away 11 years ago next week, my fascination with Star Trek ended with him. Gone were the days of popping in that well worn VHS of Star Trek IV just to watch Scotty say, “Hello Computer” while creating transparent aluminum, watching the floating Klingon bodies of VI or laughing at the hammy awfulness of Star Trek V. The decision wasn’t a conscious one but somehow it didn’t seem right to watch them without him.

Maybe it was for that reason, among others, that I cringed when the rumors of a Star Trek reboot started circulating. Never mind the fact I’ve never been a big fact of franchise regurgitation, part of me wanted to the series to stay dead, stay intact, stay the way I remembered it. Typically, I’m not the sentimental type but when it comes to Shatner and company, I make a small exception.

Luckily for me, the hype and accolades were well worth it. Star Trek is a finely acted, well balanced and wonderfully written reboot of a classic film franchise. Director JJ Abrhams has expertly woven a tale that provides just enough homage without being sappy, edge of your seat action that never seems forced and a story that does just enough to stay out of its own way. The result is classic Star Trek for a new generation.

One of the brightest parts of the film was the excellent casting decisions. The entire cast was extremely well utilized and balanced. Not only did they all look like the younger versions of the classic crew, they all perfectly balanced the mannerisms of the originals while still creating identities of their own. The only sore thumb was Eric Bana as the main villain, Nero, in that I felt his main direction was, “Be more sinister”. This didn’t detract from the film one bit, however, as the real beauty of the film was that not once did I think any of the cast members was doing an impression or a caricature of an original, and that in itself is a brilliant feat of directing and writing.

On the writing front, this is also one of the best screenplays released this past summer, despite the slightly silly storyline. The time travel angle was just muted just enough to stay out of the way of character development, which was the film’s main strength. While I could have done without the Ohura / Spock side story, the dialogue and character interactions were where the script really shined; the dialogue was crisp and the interplay between the cast members provided the emotional grounding the film needed to counteract the intense action.

And MAN, was the action intense! Everything from the hand to hand combat to the epic space battles had my home theater screaming and me grinning. To all those who are Blue Ray heads, this film is damn near reference level for showing off your system, making this a mandatory Blue Ray purchase for just that reason alone.

When the final credits started to roll, and the crew did their final “roll call” if you will, I felt a surge in my heart. This felt like the original series with a nice shiny coat of paint on it, a tribute to the past without being parody. Even without the charm of the original, this film could easily stand on it’s own and probably does for fans who never heard Khan scream, “KIRK!!”, never saw Sulu pilot a Klingon Bird of Prey and never watched Spock’s skin melt as he said goodbye to Captain Kirk for what was supposed to be the final time. Star Trek is easily in my top 5 best films released this summer and is a much watch for fans old and young alike.

One last thing. When the credits were rolling and I was getting my senses back, I felt a calm serenity that’s not like me when a movie is over. The critic in me usually starts the analysis; what I liked, what I didn’t, etc. This time though, there was none of that. Just a thought and a smile. When the film started I thought, “Hope you enjoy this dad”. Something tells me he most certainly did.

Score – 100%

Originally Reviewed – 2/8/2010

Steven Soderbergh has become one of those directors who can pretty much make whatever he wants. For every Ocean’s movie or Erin Brockovich, there is a “Girlfriend Experience” or a “The Good German”…something small and independent that you can tell he really loves. The Informant falls nicely between these two extremes as it feels like a pet project that actually got released nationwide and ends up as an entertaining and surprising film.

Matt Damon plays biochemist Mark Whitacre, who is the highest ranking executive to ever blow the whistle on a major corporation’s dirty dealings. In this case, the dirty dealing is competitive price fixing and Damon is excellent as the executive turned FBI informer. Damon’s character is self assured and confident even as the mess he’s gotten himself into deepens to unexpected and absurd levels. Despite involving the FBI, taping secret meetings and literally building a case against the company paying him a fortune, Whitacre never feels he’s wrong or his place at the company in jeopardy. Damon plays this wonderfully in the way he interacts with co-workers, FBI agents and even his family…he sees himself as a white knight of corporate justice and the results are fantastic.

As many critics (including Crasher) have mentioned, the funniest aspect of the film is his random internal monologues that pop up throughout the film. One minute he’s meeting with the FBI guys and they next minute, he’s off thinking about the poison content of butterflies or why polar bears hide their noses. Yeah, it’s that random and it’s freaking hilarious.

The rest of the cast around him does a fine job of creating a world for Damon to do his thing, but this film is all about Whitacre, which unfortunately leads to some of the films downside. While the Whitacre character is great, the rest of the film is surprisingly flat and uninteresting. Considering the company he works for specializes in making high fructose corn syrup, this isn’t all that shocking but it would have been nice to see a little more color in the world Whitacre inhabits. Luckily for the film, Whitacre is a strong enough character to move the story along, but things do tend to lag at certain moments. Also, I have no idea who green lighted the music in this film, but it was a mistake. Much of Whitacre’s interactions is framed by silly music that doesn’t feel right…it’s almost as if the filmmakers wanted to artificially heighten the comedy aspects when the film isn’t all THAT funny to begin with.

This leads me to one final word of warning to those who are interested in this film due to the trailers. This is NOT a straight up comedy as advertised in the previews. While the humor that’s in it is dry at best, the film is much more interesting than it is funny, and parts of it are actually rather sad. To me, this is a blessing in disguise as I walked in expecting to laugh and ended up getting intrigued. Not a bad trade off at all but it’s not what’s being advertised on the commercials.

When all is said and done, The Informant is a thoughtful, at times funny and ultimately very entertaining look into corporate greed and personal struggle. The film isn’t perfect, but Matt Damon’s performance is strong enough to pull you through the layers of complexity that inevitably get piled on while managing to give you a few laughs along the way.

Score – 80%

Originally Written – 2/8/2010

Call me lazy, crazy or all of the above, but I have a terrible habit of watching Oscar winning movies 2 years too late. Maybe I just can’t get out to the theater when all the buzz is churning up, maybe it’s the 70+ movies currently sitting in my Netflix queue or maybe I’m just a curmudgeonly hermit who prefers his big screen TV to sitting with actual human beings. Perhaps we’ll never know.

What I do know is, I’ve been waiting forever to see 2007’s Best Picture winner with a degree of trepidation. Could it possibly be as good as everybody said it is? The Coen Brothers rarely disappoint with the obvious classics like Raising Arizona, The Big Lebwoski and Fargo being among some of my favorite flicks but they’ve had some stinkers…The Ladykillers anybody?

Luckily for me, I had nothing to fear. No Country For old Men is easily the best Coen Brothers I’ve ever seen, and more than deserved its Best Picture Oscar.

On the surface, the plot is simple enough. Guy finds a briefcase full of drug money, drug guys hire psychopath to track it down. End of story. The real beauty of this film is not the synopsis rather the layers and layers of subtext woven into it. In comparison, it makes Fargo look like a Saturday morning cartoon. Suffice to say, this film demands a few viewings so you can really get a feel for the weight of the material.

No Country perfectly leverages everything that makes the Coen Brothers virtuoso filmmakers. The casting is perfect, the quirky humor is there in the perfect amount, the cinematography is spot on and the acting is uniformly brilliant, so much so that no one character ever outshines the other.

Speaking of acting, every cast member in No Country is perfectly utilized. While much ado was made of Javier Bardem’s Oscar winning role (deservedly so), the real surprise is Tommy Lee Jones as the humble town sheriff. In the atypical “cop after the bad guy” role, Jones perfectly portrays a man who’s caught up in a whirlwind he’s not prepared for nor fully understands. Quietly confident, yet internally aware he’s up against a force of destruction nobody can stop, he never breaks stride, even as he stays three steps behind the carnage. Without the Jones character, No Country is nothing more than a great character study of a psychopathic killer. With it, the film emotionally ties together.

The other characters in the film all work together to create a sense of balanced simplicity that simply can’t comprehend the coldly calculating killer that’s ripping their world apart. The Coen Brothers have always had a love for the simple folk that make up the fabric of America and No Country is no exception. It’s this dichotomy between good hearted “All American” people and the evil genius walking among them that gives the film its emotional grounding. You truly feel for every victim not because they never saw it coming, but because they never would’ve thought that kind of evil was possible in the first place.

In the end, my favorite aspect of the film has to be the overall tension that every scene is soaked in. While this point has undoubtedly been discussed to death within film circles, the feeling of quiet simple dread makes every moment pulse with anticipation. If you get nothing else from this film, this skill of creating tension out of sometimes ordinary situations is unnerving and exhilarating all at the same time. Only M Night Shamalyan does it as well and it’s as close to modern day Hitchcock as it gets.

While the ending could leave viewers who missed the subtexts a little cold, No Country is an instant classic, full of wrought tension and memorable characters, that’s molded into cinematic perfection. No Country For Old Men defines the term “pitch perfect” filmmaking in that it glides along at its own snails pace and sucks you in with every deliberate step.

Score – 100%

Originally Written – 2/8/2010

If there’s any sort of certainty in the world, the fact that Quentin Tarantino loves himself some genres should be one of them. From the Lee Marvin-esqe tough guy films like Reservoir Dogs to the 70’s blackpoilation genre shown in Jackie Brown to the kung fu epic Kill Bill, Tarantino has always made homage films about the movies he grew up with.

At first look, Inglorious Basterds looks like more of the same; a group of underground Jewish soldiers stationed deep within German occupied France whose sole mission is to kill as many Nazis as humanly possible. While the premise screams as homage to the classic World War II films of the 40’s and 50’s, the result is anything but. For the first time in his career, Tarantino wrote a story, set it in a time period and let it run from there. Sure there are nods and winks to the genre in question, but IB feels like his freshest idea since Pulp Fiction. The result is his best film since Jackie Brown.

Inglorious Basterds, at its core, is classic Tarantino in every sense, especially when it comes to the dialogue. Tarantino is known for developing characters through the way they speak and IB does not disappoint, serving up heaps of long winded dialogue at crucial points in the film. There are moments when the film drags a bit due to this, but the pacing is so well done, most viewers will just roll along with it. As a huge Tarantino fan, I look forward to the long monologues and IB gave me all I needed and more.

IB is also one of the best cast movies this summer, with an eclectic yet very enjoyable cast headlined by Brad Pitt, Melanie Laurent and Christoph Waltz (who won a Best Actor Award at Cannes this year for this role). While Brad Pitt is hilarious as the American leader of the Basterds, Waltz easily steals the show as SS enforcer Hans Landa. The opening scene in particular is especially brilliant and perfectly sets the tone for the film. Cameos by Michael Myers, Julie Dreyfus and BJ Novak round out the excellent ensemble cast, as well as some old “Tarantino favorites” that I won’t spoil for you. Let’s just say, if you’re a fan, you’ll cheer when you see / hear them.

While everything else from the direction to the sound is top notch, the film isn’t perfect. In my opinion, Eli Roth was very average as the “The Bear Jew”, a fun character that could have been done much better by another actor. Also, the decision to introduce the other members of the Basterds just to have them literally forgotten about halfway through the film was a surprising omission. It almost felt as though the film had a lot cut from it, surprising considering it’s already lengthy at over 2 and a half hours.

That aside, Inglorious is a true return to form for Tarantino, serving up a wonderfully surprising story backed with excellent acting, thrilling moments and an overall feeling of tension unlike anything he’s ever done. Tarantino has achieved something I always dreamed he would. He didn’t just make a movie honoring classic World War II films…he simply went ahead and created a classic World War II film.

Score – 90%

Originally Written – 2/8/2010

As I said in my Public Enemies review, expectations are a funny thing. When I saw the original teaser for D-9 (the one with the alien interview and the pixelated mouth), I literally laughed out loud. I thought to myself, “Gee, another Independence Day…greeeeaat”. Then the second trailer came out without the pixelation and the alien saying, “We just want to go home”. It was at that moment when the film finally started to appeal to me. Maybe this wasn’t going to be another alien invasion knock off. Maybe this could be something interesting. Maybe things will just blow up and make happy. Then I actually went out and saw the thing and have only this conclusion:

District 9 is one of the best science fiction movies I’ve seen…ever.

Maybe I’m still in shock from seeing it not 24 hours ago, but I struggle to even call this film science fiction…it feels almost like science non-fiction but in reality it’s a “sci fi action/drama”. Filmed half as a documentary, half as an action movie, D-9 is one of those rare films that literally has it all…jaw dropping effects, graphic violence, wonderfully realized characters, a touching love story…if this sounds like last year’s Slumdog Millionaire, you’re not too far off. Just strip out the Bollywood aspects and insert alien refugees struggling to survive in a South African ghetto, and you can make some comparisons.

For me, one of the most unexpected yet amazing aspects of the film was the aliens themselves. In most movies of this genre, the alien is the creepy insect who comes to destroy mankind or is simply setup as the big reveal. They are rarely fleshed out and developed as true characters. This is not the case in District 9. Let’s just say when the CGI alien out acts the human male lead (who was excellent in his own right), you know you have something special. Not since ET has an alien character been as fully fleshed out they are in D-9.

But don’t think this is a family film with adorable creatures and bags full of Resse’s Pieces. This is an intense adult oriented film with some serious “gross out” parts. If you read the synopsis, you’ll see the human interest centers around alien weaponry and when these things go off, they don’t disappoint. Action is always made better when it involves characters you care about, and D-9 tows that line perfectly. The action is visceral and at the same time, oddly beautiful.

Combine that with an fascinating sub-plot involving govenrnmental greed and corruption, pitch perfect direction and cinematography that drops you right into the fray, you have a great film. D-9 combines the risk, ideas and spirit of independent film with the deep pockets of big budget Hollywood and it’s a marriage made in cinema heaven. District 9 is a rare achievement and should receive the type of Oscar attention Dark Knight received last year….it probably wont, but it really should.

Highly recommended!

Score – 90%