2010 Movie Reviews

All films have a U.S. release date of 2010 and are listed alphabetically with a 1-10 rating. Numbers to star equivalents are listed at the bottom.


127 Hours: 4/10 - All I could think about during most of this film was how much better it would have been in the hand's Kevin McDonald, the director of the great 2003 documentary, "Touching the Void." The issue with filming a story like this without a documentary style is that there's no action, conflict or interest through most of the run-time. As a viewer, I wanted to hear from Aaron Ralston, the real-life hiker who was pinned by the boulder; I didn't care about James Franco's mediocre interpretation or Danny Boyle's meaningless re-imagining.

The A-Team: 5/10 - Much like 'G.I. Joe' last year,"The A-Team" is over-the-top action that really can't be taken seriously. While all the characters are two-dimensional, the performances are mostly fun to watch.

All Good Things: 6/10 - The film is based on true events and the content is there to make an engaging film, unfortunately, nothing about the filmmaking is half as clever as director Jarecki seems to think it is. The film revolves around clumsy narrative structures, gaps in logic, and an underlying bias that always seems misplaced. However, I will add, regardless of the filmmaking, the story is fascinating and the cast is strong, making it a marginally intriguing experience.

The American: 5/10 - I admire what director Anton Corbijn was attempting to do in this film, however, in all the ways Jim Jarmusch succeeded with last year's great "The Limits of Control," Corbijn falls short. I make the comparison because both films are slow-paced, often surreal and involve hit-men; the distinction is that "The American" has a protagonist who strives for a human connection -- he seeks out love -- and it takes the screenplay in a direction that is not maintainable. The film slowly drifts into the purposeless examination of a character, instead of an idea. It's only made worse by a very odd performance from George Clooney, who is never quite sure of how he should be portraying the role.

Animal Kingdom: 6/10 - Ben Mendelsohn and Jacki Weaver create two of the most terrifying and creepy characters I've seen on screen in awhile and their performances keep an otherwise uneven film very engaging. Director David Michod wants this film to be very raw, which is obvious throughout the first half, but as the plot picks up, Michod becomes decidedly more fancy with how he chooses to capture the narrative -- the overall feeling I left with is that the filmmaking could have been much tighter, and in turn, the film could have been much better.

Biutiful: 9/10 - Inarritu's 4th film is uniquely brilliant and profoundly sad. It focuses on a a very flawed man dying from terminal cancer, trying to set his affairs in order before his time ends -- most notable on his list of things that need to be tended to, the welfare of his children after he's gone. Javier Bardem is pitch-perfect (as has come to be expected from him) and posses an innate sadness in his eyes that conveys Innaritu's message in every frame: we are all powerless.

Black Swan: 8/10 - Have you ever wondered what the outcome would be if David Lynch directed "Red Shoes" (1948)? Me neither...yet here it is. Darren Aronofsky has helmed a fascinating and horrific film; a deep, introspective look into the mind of a very damaged New York city ballet performer (Natalie Portman). Portman is impressive in her roll -- never misreading a scene or skipping a note -- it's her best work since "Closer" (2004) and I can only hope she continues to challenge herself moving forward.

Blue Valentine: 9/10 - I once read a great anonymous quote: "Men marry women in hopes that they will never change, and they do; women marry men in hopes that they will change, and they don't." I feel as though writer/director Derek Cianfrance could have used that line as his elevator pitch very successfully. The film is an examination of the birth and death of a relationship, and by the time we're half way through, we realize it has a life of it's own -- almost as though Cianfrance is sitting beside us, wondering along with us where the story is going. Of course, such an approach can only work with the right cast and Ryan Gosling and Michelle Williams are superb in their portrayals.

The Book of Eli: 4/10 - A short-sighted concept and a painfully illogical plot are partially saved by an engaging performance from Denzel Washington. I'm in no way recommending the film to anyone, but hell, I guess it could have been worse.

The Bounty Hunter: 2/10 - Laughably terrible. The plot is so random and ridiculous that it may even temporarily distract you from the awful acting. I really wish there was a way to better emphasize how bad this movie is, but I'm out of adjectives.

Brooklyn's Finest: 5/10 - Director Antoine Fuqua pulls us into the lives of three police officers using elegant tracking shots, almost stalking his characters through each scene. Fuqua is unable to prolong the charade for more than about thirty minutes though since the script really has no story to tell. None of the actors deliver believable performances and none of the characters have a story arc worth viewing.

Catfish: 7/10 - The filmmakers of this modern parable leave a lot on the table, but the message viewers are left with is an extremely important one; in turn, making the film important. It's somewhat amazing to consider how young the widespread use of the internet is -- so much so, that I don't feel most people are even capable of recognizing the repercussions of human interactions that are now made possible by it. The line to avoid crossing, as I can see it, is the emotional investment so many are willing to give to a virtual world.

Centurion: 2/10- Filmmaking at its worst.

City Island: 3/10 - There's nothing worse than a film that does nothing to mask that it's a film. Every character -- every line of dialogue -- is never anything more than words from a piece of paper. Creating a reality for viewers is the most basic and important thing for a filmmaker to do; writer/director DeFelitta falls woefully short in the task.

Cop Out: 3/10 - Incomprehensibly bad. It felt as though Director Kevin Smith and several of the actors were at times aware of how awful the script was, and in turn, hamming it up and winking at the audience -- unfortunately, that approach remained as inconsistent and sloppy as the plot.

Date Night: 3/10 - Roger Ebert, a film critic I greatly admire, gave this train wreck three-and-a-half stars; and after reading his review, I couldn't help but realize that I understood and agreed with every core point he made about comedy, yet blatantly disagreed with his application of these points on "Date Night." It's no different than the dozens of other comedies Hollywood churns out each year: cheap laughs, illogical plot structures and unbelievable characters jammed together by a director who has no concept of his own profession. It's not just unfunny, it's depressing.

Daybreakers: 3/10 - It's difficult to imagine such a promising premise reduced to such a worthless and illogical pile of crap -- by the end, the film had more conceptual holes than I could count. What could have been a breakthrough for the genre, was instead a decade regression.

Edge of Darkness: 4/10 - I'm not sure what the exact percentage is, but the translation of stupid scripts into stupid movies is probably very high. Combine that with deplorably poor and uninspired direction from Martin Campbell and you're left with what was generally a very tedious moviegoing experience. Despite Mel Gibson's acting strengths and enjoyable charisma, this film was setup to fail from start.

Expendables: 6/10 - While there's a lot in this film that could have been much better (and I can't stress that enough...), the characters work and the movie is conceptually a ton of fun to watch. See it for the nostalgia of an old-fashioned (1980s) action film and you won't be disappointed.

The Fighter: 5/10 - The film is a big mess on the whole -- extremely uneven and filled out with a cast of characters I simply disdained. The only aspect really worth noting is Christian Bale's role as the former boxer turned unreliable crack addict. It's a great performance--albeit often too flashy for the content--however, it's fascinating to just see how Bale literally transforms himself from one movie to the next. He's a remarkable actor, it's just unfortunate that the film offers nothing more than an outlet to showcase his chameleon-like abilities.

Fish Tank: 5/10 - As a character study, it's vapid; as an examination of a decaying culture, it's too narrow. The film keeps us engaged, largely due to a very strong debut performance from Katie Jarvis, but there's little else for filmmaker Andrea Arnold to hang her hat on.

From Paris with Love: 4/10 - The film is fun for a little while, but you soon realize that the entire plot revolves around a series of contrivances leading you from one set piece to the next. And while John Travolta is always enjoyable to watch in his over-the-top bad-ass schtick, his talents can't save the cringe-worthy and lifeless performance from Jonathan Rhys Meyers.

GasLand: 7/10 - The documentary is an important examination of the harm caused by natural gas drilling in the environment around it and to the Americans who live in close proximity. As necessary as I feel the message is, I left the film feeling disappointed in how short-sighted director Josh Fox is. His view is very direct and simplistic: Dick Cheney is the devil and natural gas drilling needs to stop immediately, yet both those thoughts aren't explored nearly enough to account for how prominently they're showcased. Maybe the responsibility doesn't land on Fox, but I have hope that someone can pick up where Fox left off and think bigger -- really dig into the issue and gut it down to the core; as is, I feel as if I'm left with an open, festering wound, with no understanding of why it's there or how to heal it.

Get Him to the Greek: 7/10 - Easily the hardest I've laughed during a movie in a very long time; if not for the awkward and disappointing last act -- an affliction many modern comedies suffer from -- this would have ranked very highly among the best films I've seen this year.

The Ghost Writer: 7/10 - Those willing to absorb the slow start will be rewarded by a tight, engaging political mystery. Roman Polanski is a master at creating suspense and his latest film proves that he still has some gas left in the tank.

The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo [Män som hatar kvinnor]: 8/10 - This rating is probably more a reflection of how bad everything else is this year, as the film does have many faults. Nonetheless, it's among the better movie experiences I've had in recent memory and was thoroughly enjoyable all the way through. It's an intriguing and genuinely engaging mystery thriller that should satisfy all viewers.

The Girl Who Played with Fire [Flickan som lekte med elden]: 4/10 - The sequel to "The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo" is about as underwhelming as a film can be -- the plot is overwhelmingly uninteresting and rarely makes any sense. It's really unfortunate to see such a drastic falloff from the original, especially considering the trilogy was filmed all at once; it's not as if the sequel was forced by the studio.

The Girl Who Kicked the Hornet's Nest [Luftslottet som sprängdes]: 5/10 - The problems that this last chapter in the trilogy suffer from are not at all unlike the issues the second film, "The Girl Who Played with Fire," were afflicted with. It's blatantly clear that the final product of both films was callously ripped from something far more grand -- they were simply translated from novel to movie in a ridiculously sloppy fashion. Looking back at all three films, I will remember the first very fondly and do my best to forget the jumbled messes that followed it.

Going the Distance: 3/10 - Boy meets girl...they fall in love...but they live in separate cities...bickering ensues...they end up together and live happily ever after. There's virtually no conflict in the film, so it's not a drama, and there's not enough laughs for it to be a comedy -- its existence defies both genre and purpose.

Green Zone: 4/10 - "Green Zone" suffers from a very familiar pitfall: trying to make a film around an idea, forcing in everything else...you know, like believable characters and a rational plot. The "idea" that I reference is the common conception that the U.S. acted hastily (and possibly foolishly) in disbanding and disenfranchising the Iraqi military once Bagdad was occupied in 2003. Unfortunately, that idea isn't enough to support a Hollywood thriller; instead we're led on a ridiculous journey through the thought process of a very biased mind.

Grown Ups: 2/10 - It felt as through I was watching 100 minutes of outtakes of all the bad jokes and poorly written scenes that would typically not make it into a big budget Hollywood movie -- sadly, the scenes weren't taken from anything more grand -- the film was nothing more than an opportunely for Adam Sandler to give some of his old buddies a hand out.

Hot Tub Time Machine: 3/10 - The characters are unbelievable stereotypes and the plot is understandably ridiculous, yet it gets worse than that. Much worse. The film's major pitfalls actually come in the inexplicable editing and child-like plot structure. It's almost as if the world's worst writer, who wanted to jam into one movie every concept he had ever known, teamed up with the world's worst editor, who thought he could simply remove every other scene in an effort to reduce the run-time.

How Do You Know: 4/10 - Off the top of my head, I feel comfortable saying that these are the most poorly written characters I've ever seen on screen. None of them work on any level, which in turn doesn't allow them to work together. It's shocking to see such a mess come from the pen of James L. Brooks.

How to Train Your Dragon: 6/10 - Dreamworks just can't seem to escape the shadow of Pixar. The film is good -- it's enjoyable all the way through -- but it lacks the humanity that I've come to expect from an animation film because of Pixar's efforts. The bar has been raised for years and I'm not handing out anymore free passes to those unable to keep up.

Inception: 9/10 - Christopher Nolan, borrowing greatly from Andrei Tarkovsky, has created a brilliant film and a wholly original screenplay (which is not a common occurrence in Hollywood these days) -- I give high compliments to Nolan for his bravery. I think the film's only flaw lands in Nolan not pushing the emotional depth far enough; he brings the audience to the brink of nostalgia and then backs off, which at times made the film feel like it could have offered up even more. There's really not much else I can add without spoiling key plot points, but that's probably for the best -- Nolan has created a great film that should be discussed and debated, not reviewed.

Iron Man 2: 4/10 - While my rating is slightly higher for this than its predessesor, that's in no means an endorsement, but rather a product of significantly lower expecations going into the sequel. As I mentioned in my critisiscm of Director John Favreau's first installment of the comic book hero, when a superhero film is based in the real world, the leesh on suspension of disbelief is shortened, thus making the illogical characters, ridiculous plot and awful acting (by most involved) more troublesome to accept. What I cannot argue is the fact that it is a perfectly mindless way to spend two hours of your time.

Jackass 3D: 6/10 - The truth is, I have absolutely no idea how to review this film. There are no actors or plot and the cameraman spends half the film puking at what he's forced to witness. On the other-hand, to give it an unfavorable review would be dishonest since I spent a good deal of time (relative to the many other comedies released) laughing hysterically.

The Karate Kid: 2/10 - A deplorable abomination of all that made the original an entertaining film. In addition, the decision to lower the ages of the children involved from late-high school to 11-12 year-olds made nearly all of the action sequences uncomfortably awkward or laughable.

Kick-Ass: 3/10 - As I sat and watched the movie, I couldn't help but be completely bored by the predictable plot and utterly terrified by the reprehensible content. My displeasure was so apparent, that I was often reminded by those around me that "it's just a Superhero movie." Alright, that's fine, I'll review it as such...and as such, it's among the worst superhero movies I've ever seen.

The Kid's Are All Right: 6/10 - This is an extremely contrived film -- it is laughably neat and tidy throughout -- and director Lisa Cholodenko makes some poor judgments in her initial character and plot introductions and then concludes the film in a very uneven way. Even so, the film constantly remains very watchable because of the strong performances from Annette Bening, Julianne Moore and Mark Ruffalo.

The King's Speech: 8/10 - Wonderful performances by Colin Firth and Geoffrey Rush allow director Tom Hooper the room he needs to make the movie he wants. It's no simple task to fit such a complicated relationship -- between a king and his slightly eccentric speech therapist -- in the context of a demanding historical narrative. Hooper lets all his chips ride into the final scene (the big pre-war speech) and he manages to pull it off flawlessly.

Knight and Day: 5/10 - So insanely over-the-top and ridiculous that it becomes difficult to review with proper perspective. Essentailly, the movie acts as a cartoon, moving two-dimentional characters directly from one set piece to the next (often times literally). Still, it is mindlessly entertaining and does fulfill its obvious main-purpose: the completion of Tom Cruise's image recovery plan.

The Last Song: 2/10 - One of the worst films I've seen in a long time. Nothing in the film has any redeeming value and Miley Cyrus has no future as an actress.

Oceans: 6/10 - There are some amazing shots in this film, so at only 85 minutes in length, the cinematography alone should hold you captive. My only qualm would be the lack of depth in the narration -- this is the ideal documentary where a filmmaker can overload his/her audience with information, so it feels hallow to walk away having learned so little.

The Other Guys: 4/10 - The plot is idiotic; the writing is sophomoric; the acting is uneven; and the direction is unfathomably sloppy. Fine. It's a summer comedy staring Will Ferrell, so I can accept those shortcomings. The film's true undoing, however, are the characters and how unbearably unbelievable they all are. It's great to cast a comedy with eccentrics filling out the roster, but when they're pushed this far over the top, everything they do becomes inherently unfunny -- it's a movie that actually would have worked remarkably better as a cartoon.

Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time: 5/10 - The script is weak throughout and often painfully predictable, but the film as a whole is entertaining enough to merit a viewing for those bored enough to take the plunge.

A Prophet [Un Prophete]: 6/10 - An engaging performance from Tahar Rahim and a strong script make this film a worthy time-investment, but director Jacques Audiard's tedius pacing and painful stumbling through every step left me feeling robbed of what could have been a truly great film.

Red: 6/10 - Make no mistake, with any other cast, this film would be borderline unwatchable. Fortunately, Willis, Malkovich, Freeman and Mirren keep the film engaging and entertaining all the way through.

Repo Men: 1/10 - The film takes place in the future, when people purchase organs on credit. When one fails to make a payment for three months, "Repo Men" are sent to the person's home to retrieve the organ, usually killing the person in the process. Everyone seems to be alright with how the process works. I suppose if you're able to suspend your disbelief enough to accept that reality, you might enjoy the movie...but that may even be a foolish assumption.

Robin Hood: 4/10 - Ridley Scott's latest film is an absolutely bizarre experience. The production values are top-notch, but the script suffers all the way through. There is literally no character development of any kind, so we're just thrust into this big-budget bastardization of famous English folklore, unable to see Russell Crowe as anything other than Russell Crowe...and if you lose focus for a moment, you might even think he's Maximus Decimus Meridius.

Salt: 5/10 - I'm alright with an action triller having a weak plot in exchange for solid entertainment, but when screenwriters jeopardize the internal logic of their own character creations, it's very difficult to get absorbed in a film. While it's a relatively enjoyable experience, none of the script's pieces add up.

The Secret in Their Eyes [El Secreto de Sus Ojos]: 8/10 - "Memories are all we end up with; at least choose the nice ones." This is a very powerful film that goes to great lengths in exploring the concept of human passion. Director Campanella chooses to make his stand with a clever detective story, but it's a film that could have been told through a thousand different lenses. I admit some liberties are taken with the plot and I was forced to suspend my disbelief on a few occasions, but gratefully those aren't the memories I'll take from the film. I'd find it difficult to imagine anyone not connecting with this film on a very intimate level, in one way or another.

She's Out of My League: 7/10 - Me enjoying this movie is about as ridiculous as the premise of the film: a guy who is a "5" having a relationship with a girl who is a "10." While director Jim Field Smith doesn't always hit his marks, he hits more than most comedy directors do these days; and with help from a mostly funny supporting cast, it was one of the more pleasant surprises thus far this year.

Shutter Island: 7/10 - Scorsese's new film is possibly the perfect prototype for a flawless movie with an unforgivably stupid gimmick -- which then in turn makes you wonder: what would be left if the gimmick were removed? It's simply impossible to suspend one's disbelief during the viewing; at no point does the material ever elevate beyond a writer putting fantasy onto paper. Still, I can't help but recommend the film on the merit of its masterful acting and direction, but I also can't help but to warn you of the unavoidable disappointment that you'll likely feel during the credits.

The Social Network: 8/10 - Strong performances from the young cast and tight direction from David Fincher keep the film rolling, but the real star is screenwriter Aaron Sorkin, who churns out two hours of non-stop, snapping dialogue, engaging the audience in a story that shouldn't have been so easy to tell.

Solitary Man: 8/10 - This is a very smart film. It looks at the same broad, sweeping motifs that hundreds of other films examine -- specifically life relationships and the charade they often transpire to become -- however, it does it from the vantage point of a very flawed character. Not flawed in a traditional sense, like a stereotypical hero with a weakness, but rather from the perspective of a villain with some scattered positive qualities. It's not a role many actors could pull off so seamlessly, but Michael Douglas does wonders with it -- easily one of the great performances of his career.

Stone: 7/10 - As a film-lover, this was an infuriating film experience. Robert DeNiro, Ed Norton and Milla Jovovich are great -- they deliver award worthy pieces of brilliance -- but director John Curran screws this film up so badly it made me nauseous. Curran's vision is so muddled and confused that I doubt he could even convey what he was trying to accomplish with the disastrous narrative. Regardless, I still strongly recommend the film on the sole merits of the actors involved.

The Tourist: 5/10 - The script had the feel of a throwback to an old Cary Grant/Grace Kelly adventure, unfortunately only Angelina Jolie seemed to get the memo. Director Donnersmarck and Johnny Depp went ahead as if the project was a straight thriller, which simply didn't work.

The Town: 5/10 - While it might not be saying much, Ben Affleck is certainly a better director than he is an actor; but even so, "The Town" is a step down from his first film, "Gone Baby Gone" (2007). With the exception of the lead character (played by Affleck), all the other characters are two-dimensional, wandering through an extremely contrived and linear storyline. The one shinning bright spot in the film is the performance by Jeremy Renner, in large part because he's able to show off his range following up "The Hurt Locker" (2008) -- I eagerly anticipate seeing what he does in future projects.

Toy Story 3: 7/10 - Interestingly, I've always found the Toy Story franchise to be the weakest member of Pixar's collection, yet something about this sequel seemed to rise above its predecessors. While the film can't be compared to some of Pixar's best work, it is certainly a worthy addition to the Pixar Library, and likely will be in contention for the best animated film released in 2010.

True Grit: 8/10 - This is a unique remake; it's equal or superior in every measurable way to the 1969 original...every way but one. When you have a film character defined by an iconic performance, such as John Wayne's Rooster Cogburn, it's simply impossible to remove that image from a viewer's memory -- it'd be the exaggerated equivalent of casting a great actor like Daniel Day-Lewis in a remake of "Rocky" (1976) and then trying to debate and contrast his performance against Sylvester Stallone's. Make no mistake, this is a very good film, but I suspect I'll find myself reflecting back on Wayne's version more often.

Unstoppable: 5/10 - It's a film with not much going for it -- even pulled off flawlessly, the ceiling wouldn't be very high. The only way the movie could even remotely work would be with a leading actor who the audience can undoubtedly believe is always the smartest man on screen -- Denzel Washington is that man.

Wall Street: Money Never Sleeps: 5/10 - It's a forgettable film, headlined by an even more forgettable performance from Shia LaBeouff. However, I do admit to having a soft spot for a reoccurring iconic performance -- Gordon Gecko is one of the greatest characters created for the screen, so any chance to see Michael Douglas have another chance to portray him is enjoyable from the perspective of a cinephile.

When in Rome: 3/10 - A painfully bad script with some of the worst dialogue I've seen in a main stream film. On an even more basic level, it was a "comedy" without the laughs, making me wonder what exactly director Mark Johnson was striving to accomplish.

Winter's Bone: 3/10 - It's a harsh rating I suppose, but it's tough to have sympathy when the thought that crossed my mind most during the viewing was: "Why was this film made?" Seriously, I have no idea why the script was written and I have no idea why anyone thought the script was interesting enough to make a film from it.

"You Don't Know Jack:" 7/10 - An absorbing look into the life of Dr. Jack Kevorkian. While the film has powerful moments, it mostly drifts along, walking between the raindrops; never really delving into the moral complexity of assisted suicide as much as I would have liked (the opposition to it in the film almost entirely revolved around the views of religious fundamentalists). Nonetheless, it was a joy to watch Al Pacino dig into a substantial role and it's thrilling to see that he still has gas in the tank.

Youth in Revolt: 5/10 - The concept is directly stolen from "Me, Myself and Irene" (2000) and falls well short of it in laughs...and even plot, if that's believable. However, it does have good heart, held together almost solely by Michael Cera's strong performance.

Rating Breakdown:
10 = 4 Stars (Masterpiece)
9 = 4 stars
8 = 3 1/2 stars
7 = 3 stars
6 = 2 1/2 stars
5 = 2 stars
4 = 1 1/2 stars
3 = 1 star
2 = 1/2 star
1 = No stars (I was unable to finish viewing it)