THE HURT LOCKER ☆☆☆☆

The best Iraq War movie we've been given, easily, and it's not one that goes into the moral animosity about why we shouldn't fight and that war is bad (duh). "The Hurt Locker" is about a select group of soldiers, here an elite bomb dismantle unit, and we follow them through the dangers of the every day job, and the intensity and suspense of those scenes, one after the other, with a rigorous pace, is more compelling, and will clue you to your seat, better than any action thriller you might have seen this year (one with the same structure and pace is "Angels and Demons," though the dangers are less real there). "The Hurt Locker" excels at that level, but what gives the movie it's soul and energy is our three soldiers, who we watch as the days in rotation (when their tour ends) draws ever nearer, and, something that no great war movie can seem to do without, each take their own personal toll. Brain Geraghty as timid, frightened Owen Eldridge, Anthony Mackie as straight-arrow, no-nonsense JT Sanborn, and Jeremy Renner as stalwart William James, the genius bomb removal guy with a cool, but reckless attitude: the performances by the three, not just Renner, are top notch. Watching these guys, these actors, as the jobs get more dangerous and, for James, more personal, and the days counting down for home click off, we are compelled by them as each seems to lose their nerve, knowing that home and death are not to far apart from each other. And more involving James, who spirals out of control, at one point, as a vengeful vigilante who we can only watch in terror hoping this guy, who we know may be smart on the job, and though reckless, can loss his footing with matters of the heart. By the end of this movie, the last few words by our three soldiers as they contemplate their time at war, and displayed by the actors, is poetic and heartbreaking. "The Hurt Locker's" main guy is James, and we follow him through most of the movie, and his ending clarity makes "The Hurt Locker" one of the better moral stories, and better told ones, of the last year. Director Kathryn Bigelow, who's "K-19: The Widowmaker" was a severely underrated action/war drama, shows her chops with a no-balls approach, a great cast, and a great script (Mark Boal, who did "In The Valley of Elah," possibly the only other good Iraq War movie).

"The Hurt Locker" didn't make my '09 top ten list simply because I didn't want to push anything out, but it would have been ranked high (think somewhere around the middle, between "Invictus" and "Inglourious Basterds"), it's one of the best of the year, and certainly one of the best war dramas to come out in a while. It's an intense war film with a supercharged pace and a tough, but full, heart. Like "Platoon" is to the Vietnam War, "The Hurt Locker" is to the Iraq War. No question.

THE IMAGINARIUM OF DOCTOR PARNASSUS ☆☆☆ 1/2

I haven't seen too many Terry Gilliam movies, and the only one other than "The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus" was "The Brothers Grimm," his last movie before "Parnassus," and one of the only mainstream-type films, (meaning a plot that makes sense) that he made (...I think). "Brothers Grimm" didn't lack in Gilliam's visual style, and neither does "Parnassus," though with less visual depth and detail than "Brothers Grimm," still arrests you. Personally, a visual style close to Tim Burton's romantic goth spin, and twisty Shakespearian settings and costume arrangements is one I like to see on screen, and Gilliam, along with DP Nicola Pecorini, production designer Anastasia Masaro, and costume designer Monique Prudhomme (who all, for the most part, have worked with Gilliam before), mix that together nicely with Gilliam's very grimy-looking, dingy London streets. It's a style I love, and it looks great here.

The story, yes, as you would guess, is hard to make out, but Gilliam tackles it like it was a long beloved Shakespearian play he was faithfully adapting to the big screen, and it certainly seems like a long forgotten Victorian fable, or Grimm fairy tale, and he, Gilliam, tells his story with the same master touch of an old campfire storyteller dictating his narrative with ease. That doesn't mean the story is still easy to make out, but it compels you anyway, and the cast seem to get it: Christopher Plummer as Dr. Parnassus himself, in a lead role I haven't seen him ever do since I stared watching movies on a regular basis, and he's really good here; and, of course, Heath Ledger, as the mysterious Tony, is too in his last role. Ledger might have been Gilliam's man-muse next to Tim Burton and Johnny Depp if not for his sudden departure, but Gilliam takes full advantage of him here as a shady Londoner with a knack of wooing woman, a boozy disposition and a thick English accent. Ledger was good in his last role in "Parnassus." Heath, you were a good actor, and one who probably would have went on to be a great one. Farewell.

Following the other good, well-known actors in this movie playing Tony, Colin Farrel, Jude Law, and Johnny Depp, all honor Ledger's role by taking up his reins to finish off the part in what could have easily been a disaster for the movie, but, considering it's story, having Tony played by three other actors, and good ones, when they go off into a world behind a stage curtain, works tremendously. Personally, something I would have wanted to see is Ledger, rather than Farrel, take back the role near the end for a good full-circle, but it worked nonetheless.

Terry Gilliam's style is of dark, comedic abstract fantasy, and "Parnassus" is Gilliam at his best. I only say that because from what I hear of other, better experts on Gillam's movies, and have seen most to all of them, than I have, is that "Parnassus" is Gilliam at his best. You don't have to take their word for it, or mine. Go see the movie, and see more of Gilliam's work. I certainly need to.

THE LOVELY BONES ☆☆☆

Peter "The Lord of the Rings" Jackson graces "The Lovely Bones" with the same CG, grand visual sweep he used for his Middle Earth trilogy and the romantic tackle of "King Kong," and he doesn't disappoint here, for "The Lovely Bones," but he does for the rest of the movie.

Jackson's approach to the material, though very inspired and non lacking in emotional depth, wasn't the right approach. Alice Sebold's novel, beloved and considered the best written literature of the past decade, and a book I did read before the film release, called for something more real, bold and purposeful in the themes it represented: the rape and murder of a young girl and the affect it has on a family and community ongoing years after the girl's death. Jackson spends time on it, but not enough, and more on the mystery of who killed Susie Salmon and the inner darkness of the person we follow who did commit the crime, George Harvey. Not to say the suspense and Mr. Harvey in his dark basement/house plotting murder wasn't compelling to watch, but we needed to see more of the emotional struggle of the Salmon family, and likewise the friends, including Susie's crush, Ray, and Ruth, the girl with the only connection to Susie in the afterlife, characters that were primary in the original novel. Also, despite it was one of the many draws to the book and for Jackson and Weta, no doubt, the creation and representation of a fantastic world, Susie and the In-between shouldn't have been considered more than the earth stuff. Actually, Jackson and screenwriter's Fran Walsh (Jackson's partner) and Philippa Boyens equally spend time, script-wise, on Susie/The In-Between and the events below on earth, Mr. Harvey, The Salmons, Ray and Ruth, but it didn't work, and, again, despite it was one of the aspects Peter Jackson was perfect to helm the project, the CG-rendered fantasy world of Susie's Heaven was not the right way to go for Sebold's very real story of rape, murder and turmoil. In contrast to "The Lord of the Rings" and "King Kong," "The Lovely Bones" is too romantic to take seriously. Viewers have asked why didn't Jackson take the same approach for "Heavenly Creatures," and my guess would be he didn't want to make the same movie and I would agree, but after seeing "The Lovely Bones," the movie probably would have worked better that way.

An inspired job by by Stanley Tucci as George Harvey and Saoirse Ronan as Susie Salmon, and because the film was centered on them their roles blasted off the screen to make it better than it seemed for Mark Wahlberg, Rachel Weisz and Susan Sarandon as Susie's lost/heartbroken parents and boozy, free-spirited grandmother Lynn, who all did equally nice work.

I'll still say I remain a loyal fan of Peter Jackson. "The Lord of the Rings" and "King King" are some of my favorite movies, but his style of storytelling of a bigger scope was too much for what should have been a smaller movie.