...And Why These 2009 Movies Aren't

As I said yesterday, I wish more critics would devote time to discussing films that didn't quite make their year-end lists, especially the ones that are lauded by their peers or the Hollywood establishment. It's fun to see people's "Best of" lists, but I get more out of reading about the process of making those lists, how professional critics and average schmoes pare down all the films they've seen over the year to just a handful that they'll declare the year's best. Or if the picks are ranked, the reasoning behind the placements. Films can be so radically different, and I enjoy reading up on people's different criteria for quality, and the thought processes involved in picking and choosing favorites. Most critics will just present a Top Ten list with write-ups for each film like the one I posted yesterday, but some will go more in depth and metatextual. Those are the ones I appreciate the most, so I want to do the same.

I'll be talking about films that were up for major awards or that received enough buzz and hype during awards season that they stayed in the spotlight, so this is really a response to the established status quo's picks for the best films of 2009. The simple act of omission is enough to convey disagreement for most, but I'd like to articulate my reasons more clearly. Because it's fun. I guess you could call this an "anti-list" of sorts because I'll mainly be highlighting the problems and shortcomings of these films instead of their strengths, though I'll be playing fast and loose with the list format. I want to make it clear before diving in that I liked all the films I'm going to discuss, and I'd happily recommend them to others. I just don't think they were the best of the best.

So let's get to the big one first. Why not "The Hurt Locker"? It was a film that only worked on a single, visceral level for me. The action sequences are superb, and Jeremy Renner's performance as the adrenaline-addicted Sergeant James was excellent, but I didn't find myself engaged emotionally or intellectually by the story or characters. When the film was finished, I was appreciative but unmoved, and I had no urge to see it again. Not a good sign. I did eventually rewatch "The Hurt Locker" to make sure I was giving it a fair shake after most of the hype had died down, and I had the same reaction. It's a technically amazing film, and Bigelow earned her Oscar, but I couldn't connect enough with the content to do anything more than appreciate it.

There were several films that were elevated by a single performance, but otherwise unremarkable. Sometimes a great performance is enough to sustain a film all by itself, the way Marion Cotillard did with "La Vie en Rose," but Jeff Bridges, Colin Firth, and Morgan Freeman couldn't quite make up for the mediocrity of "Crazy Heart," "A Single Man," and "Invictus." "The Blind Side" with Sandra Bullock belongs in the same category, but it was actually much better than I was expecting. So many people wrote it off as an exercise in pandering to Middle America, and I could see the problems with the way several characters were represented in the film, but its only real cinematic crime was playing it safe. As an examination of racial issues in the United States, though, "Precious" left it in the dust.

"An Education" almost made the list on the strength of Carey Mulligan's star turn, which left a great impression. It came down to "An Education" or "Bright Star," but "Bright Star" won out for more difficult subject matter and better direction. And like "The Hurt Locker," I'm in no hurry to revisit "Education." I think I got about everything I'm going to from the film after a single viewing. Another cautionary tale of troubled young love was "500 Days of Summer," which seemed determined to be the indie favorite of the year. I enjoyed it for its subversive take on the romantic comedy formula, but found it too dependent on gimmicks, and the ending was entirely too pat for my tastes. I ended up liking the promotional materials for "500 Days" more than the actual film.

Animated films had a very good year, so good that I wrote up an entire Top Ten for them back in July. PIXAR's "Up" was all over the major critics' lists, but I had it only the fourth best animated film after "Coraline," "Mary and Max," and "Ponyo." "Up" had stellar prologue sequence, but I felt that the rest of the film was awfully derivative of PIXAR's other films. Of course even a middling PIXAR film is better than the output of most other studios on their best days, but this year middling wasn't good enough. As for "Coraline," "Mary and Max," and "Ponyo," they get points for being daring and unorthodox and pushing the boundaries of animated films, but I liked their parts much more than their cohesive wholes, ultimately the same problem I had with "Up."

Some of the hardest cuts were the foreign films, which I always have difficulty evaluating because of concerns over cultural gaps and translation issues. Michael Haneke's "The White Ribbon" impressed me until I saw "Cache" and I realized how much more Haneke was capable of. It's hard to think of anything as a "best of" when you know it's not the best the filmmaker can do. "Flame and Citron," a Danish WWII film, had some very impressive sequences and made me a fan of Mads Mikkelsen, but the narrative was meandering and overlong. "A Prophet" from France is one of the better executed mobster stories I've seen in a long time, but I didn't find anything truly exciting or revolutionary about it aside from the Muslim protagonist.

Finally, "Avatar" was never on any of my shortlists. It's a great technical watershed, but I got bored about halfway through when it became clear where the story was going. "District 9" and "Moon" both gave me better performances and more intelligent science-fiction concepts to chew over. Also out of the running from the start was "Inglorious Basterds," Quentin Tarantino's pulpy tribute to World War II cinema that succeeded in rubbing me entirely the wrong way from the moment I first set eyes on the trailer. Again, I can respect the artistry and the technique, but the treatment of the subject matter left me cold.

So there you have it. I don't think 2009 was a great year for film, but it wasn't as bad as some made it out to be. It was a year for genre pictures, animation, and dark, dark subject matter to go with the rough economic times. We may not have had an abundance of masterpieces, but there were plenty of films worth watching and discussing. And now that I've finally finished with the films of 2009. awards season is upon us again, and the studios are gearing up for year-end releases.

But my 2010 at the movies is just getting started.