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.

NINE ☆☆☆

"Nine" is a musical close to mediocrity, but I'll give it it's due.

The new movie musical, from choreographer/director Rob Marshall (of "Chicago" and the visual drama "Memoirs of a Geisha"), is a good music performance. The numbers aren't half bad, and the songs are lyrical, poetic, and pretty darn catchy. Marshall can work a tune on camera, and it helps he has a lot of great material (thanks Maury Yeston!), but Marshall's problem is that the movie's music numbers don't sing. They don't soar, or fly, or bounce all over the place, and for a musical that needs those show-stopping tunes to really be anything close to a musical, they definitely should. And I would think for any of that to work is to have good editing. So, in a way, should I blame the editors, Claire Simpson and Wyatt Smith? (Well, at any rate, the director should have pushed them more.) "Chicago," though not a great musical, either, still blasted a lot of their numbers with excellent camera work that danced and flew, and cuts that bounced and flashed and made us tap our feet at 90 miles an hour. "Nine" needed to be that.

On a good note, something positive of Marshall is his one great talent on his shows is garnering a very talented crew, who each exuberate great visuals, shot's that are visually arresting, with beautiful lighting, camera work, costume and set dress (just see "Chicago" or "Geisha," especially "Geisha,", and you would agree with me); photographer Dion Beebe, who moves his camera with great ease, the ever fabulous costume lady Colleen Atwood, and production designer John Myhre, all do wonderful work here, and bring out "Nine" beautifully.

Next to the music and the visuals, the story of "Nine," on the other hand, just wasn't taken on well enough. Marshall's "Geisha," a movie with no music tunes, suffered dramatically simply because Marshall couldn't tell a story with the flare he could with a dance number. Personally, every time the music stopped and the frustrated inner turmoil of Guido Contini came up, I sulked and waited for the next number.

Though it's hard to say, in spite of Marshall, the movie doesn't have a nice cast to back him up: Daniel Day-Lewis, Penelope Cruz, Nicole Kidman, Marion Cotillard, Kate Hudson, Judi Dench, most Oscar winners, by the way. Their acting is wasted a little, but they each are given a tune to sing, and excel with them. They blew their vocals and surprised me they could even do that. For having them in the movie, that did it for me.

Not a bad script job, too. From Michael Tolkin and Anothony Minghella (the Academy Award winning director of "The English Patient"), who, sadly, recently passed away last year.

"Nine," isn't a bad musical, and it can get you that fix, but if you want a really excellent one, I would see "Moulin Rouge!" And in the case of "Nine," if you aren't willing to sit with contemptuous Guido Contini, I would just buy the soundtrack.

SHERLOCK HOLMES ☆☆☆

The new Sherlock Holmes is flashy, suave, cool, but also brutal, gritty, tough, and, as he should be, very smart. Director Guy Richie's take, with Robert Downey Jr. as the eccentric case detective and now head basher Sherlock Holmes, and Jude Law as his companion, the aristocratic-type, but brazen Dr. John Watson, is very stylish and very fun; 1800's London looks very dark and dirty, but in a good, Gothic-sort-of-way, with lots of detailed and lavish production design and CG overcast skies to help fill in the gloom. Even with Holmes being a rough boxer and Watson the objective, non-passive and intolerable doctor as Holmes sort-of subconscious, the script retains Doyle's Holmes, the intelligent, detail oriented super sleuth and his loyal partner. Here, in 09's "Sherlock Holmes," Richie, Downey Jr. and Law play off some comedic banter of Holmes and Watson, as well as having them get into lots of dangerous cliffhangers together, but still have the fun whoduit mystery that makes Holmes' puzzle deducing so good to follow along with. Now, the case of "Sherlock Holmes" isn't the mystery of the century, but it keeps your interest, and Robert Downey Jr. and Jude Law are so much fun to watch on screen anyway.

The rest of the cast is good: Rachel McAdams as the sexy, clever crime lady Irene Alder, Mark Strong as the mysterious villian, Lord Blackwood (we honestly don't see much of him in this movie, and we should have) and Eddie Marsan (more low key here) as Inspector Lestrade. The script, especially the dialogue, is smart, fast and witty, written by Anthony Peckham (writer of Clint Eastwood's latest, "Invictus"), Michael Robert Johnson and Simon Kinberg. I liked Hans Zimmer's score here, too, again synthetic-sounding and loud, but nicely playing off the motifs with banjos, being the new Holmes instrument of choice.

Again, the story, and the case, could have been more involving, but it moves along briskly, and with Robert Downey Jr. and Jude Law, very stylishly so.

UP IN THE AIR ☆☆☆ 1/2

A good story, and director Jason Reitman (of "Thank You for Smoking" and "Juno," and yes, son of Ivan "Ghostbusters" Reitman) brings out the humanity of "Up in the Air" better than anything else he's ever done. The movie is charming and very funny, but the drama seethes through just as well, hiding it's subtle poetic underpinnings, all evoked by good writing and an involved cast: George Clooney, Anna Kendrick, Vera Farmiga, Jason Bateman, Melanie Lynskey, Danny McBride, all give full character profiles or nuanced performances (I'll throw Sam Elliot in there for a nice comedic touch, mostly because I'm convinced he was playing himself).

And the timing couldn't have been better. With the economy in the dumps, "Up in the Air" finds Ryan Bingham, a corporate firing specialist, letting go more people in a single company than he would have a whole town five years earlier. We see all this through Natalie Keener, a young business pioneer, as office after office finds a list as long as Santa's naughty parchment of simple, hard workers to let go. Once we even see a very spacious office floor nearly empty, with scatterings of desks here and there. Reitman knows how fragile the material is, and presents it with just enough intimacy that we can watch without crying our eyes out, but feeling for every person fired by Clooney and his sure-fire (ha) verbal debriefing methods. Reitman even puts a nice touch with most of the fired-iees by actually casting real fired employees and having them lament on camera. Their testimonies are put together with a timely feel, evoking the times we live in with modest precision. And the testimonies are utilized at the end to help cement the film's point, which is further presented by Clooeny's Bingham through narration, "The stars will wheel forth from their daytime hiding places; and one of those, slightly brighter than the rest, will be my wingtip passing over." I wouldn't give anything away for spoilers, but "Up in the Air" has a great theme, and is uplifting in this economic climate.

"Up in the Air" was made for the right time, at the right time. Hopefully, audiences will appreciate it more when it hits wide on Christmas, though Oscar will certainly relish it, but it wouldn't need one night of glamour to be remembered forever. Let it's audience decide.

AVATAR ☆☆☆☆

"Who's king of the world? Go on, James. Say it. Don't be shy. Who's the king of the world?"

"I am"

"That's right! Yes-you-are!"

There are movies that come along once in a while that are made with such vision, such scope, such huge undertakings of pyrotechnics (here CGI), that require such new feats of technology (here new 3D cameras and advanced performance capture), that there are only so many filmmakers who can accomplish it, stomach the pressure and the overwhelming hardship and workload, and who could only pull it off with not just good storytelling, but (excuse me) massive amounts of balls. James Cameron is one of those filmmakers. And after "Titanic," one of the best epic, romantic films ever made, we could have waited another decade for "Avatar."

"Avatar," James Cameron's sci-fi/fantasy genre explosion, is three syllables over WOW and into HOLY SHIT. It's an achievement of scope and CG animation coated as a crowd-pleasing action-packed extravaganza with a final blow-out battle that leaves the audience with a sense of astonishment and ultimate satisfaction. And, more importantly, it's a revolution to the escapist/sci-fi genre; it's a story that hasn't been tackled with this much width and imagination since "2001," or had the same impact as the first "Star Wars." The showing I attended, even at 11:30 in the morning, was sold out (so glad I bought a ticket the night before, though, granted, it was in IMAX 3D), and people were lining up in advance for the next screening. "Star Wars" had the same turnout. Could "Avatar" be the next non-franchise phenomenon? I don't here sequel, but I do hear a high chant culminating from the recesses of thousands of cinemas worldwide, "CAMERON! CAMERON! CAMERON!" It's a well deserved victory for him, and audiences are showing how willing they are to throw down their gold coins (or cash) to carry him to the winner's circle. Cameron could prove again that he is the king of the box office, and "Avatar" could go down as the highest grossing film of all time. The numbers are already impressive with $73 million domestically adding to over $200 million worldwide. I know "King Kong," Peter Jackson's big opus after the phenomenon of his "Lord of the Rings" trilogy, was expected to top 'Titanic" for all time box office honors, but wasn't even close with less than $200 million at home. It may be Cameron has that certain magic that other films lack, or more hype than any other film could ask for. "Avatar" was a movie long in the making, for Cameron over a decade, and was predicted by critics as his next great masterpiece, and fan hype exploded over a still young internet, not to mention after "The Lord of the Rings" and "Harry Potter" proved so worthwhile, everyone was screaming for more escapist fantasy, and after the end of "Star Wars" there was still hungering for the next great epic science fiction/fantasy film. The call was answered, and answered like a supernova explosion.

Now, "Avatar" isn't a masterpiece, or Cameron's best film. The movie isn't flawless. Like George Lucas before him, James Cameron's writing in science fiction isn't really the best. The story, though it doesn't lack that breadth, isn't involving enough. It's character's are flat, and their dialogue equally bland and humorless, and the actors are given more room to spread their CG muscles then their acting chops.

"Avatar" isn't perfect, but because of the movie's overpowering hold on our sense of wonderment it's flaws are nothing but pesky nats to swat away when we loss ourselves in the summer breeze. It's the movie of the year.