My Top 10 Films of 2008

*Note: The following is part of the continuing "10 FOR 10" series in celebration of ten years of Jeremy The Critic, in which my choices for the top 10 films of each year from 2006-2015 are revealed. Don't forget to check out my previous posts for 2006 and 2007. This installment will be focusing on 2008. Just a reminder that movies must have a U.S. release date of that particular year in order to qualify.

                                                                       2008

It's time to put 2008 to bed. If forced to rank, I'd probably name this the second weakest year covered in this series behind 2006. Like '07, I did compile a belated Top 10 list for this year, but very much unlike 07, a disappointed resignation accompanied my choices as I bemoaned their many flaws. Eight years later, few will be shocked at the films that made it, but may be taken aback somewhat at the order, which has changed considerably with time.

The Dark Knight, already an iffy choice for the top spot, loses that position here, dropping to a still respectable number 3. Let's face it: It has issues and the overabundance of superhero movies since has either hurt or helped its cause depending on whether you'd classify it as one. If nothing else, it'll always be remembered for Heath Ledger's posthumous Oscar-winning performance, which far surpasses the film it's in, which is still groundbreaking in many ways, arguably representing the high-water mark for director Christopher Nolan. But count me among the very few who prefer its sequel, The Dark Knight Rises.

Time has been kinder than expected to Best Picture winner Slumdog Millionaire, in hindsight one of the wiser Academy choices compared to what we've gotten since. Every time it comes on, it's tough to look away. Gran Torino holds steady as possibly the best late-era Eastwood entry while WALL-E becomes the first animated feature to make one of my lists, with few Pixar films measuring up to it since. Its existence as a weird political timepiece/character study and the great work from Josh Brolin and the entire cast surprisingly allows secures Oliver Stone's W. to sneak in.

David Fincher pops up again with Benjamin Button, but even with its incredible final hour I'd still have problems defending it as one of his stronger career efforts, much less worthy of the top spot. Revolutionary Road and Frost/Nixon are both so ridiculously underrated that I actually contemplated sliding them into the top two slots just to make a point. I resisted because neither really get over that hump that takes it to the next level. Still, I'd contend both are near-flawless, representing the best the decade has to offer (especially the latter, which grows more exciting on each rewatch). Roger Ebert's favorite film of the decade, Synecdoche, New York, is certainly challenging and ambitious enough to take top honors, but could I sit down and easily watch it right now? Probably not, as I'd have to be in the right frame of mind, but its standing here may as well be a vote of supreme respect for what director Charlie Kaufman and the late Philip Seymour Hoffman (in maybe his greatest role) accomplish.

But almost by process of elimination, it's The Wrestler for the win, a movie that's proven to hold the highest rewatch value for me despite its depressing subject matter and the fact that I initially thought Aronofsky's film arrived too late to open enough eyes to what actually goes on within the pro wrestling world. History has proven that theory wrong and as much as Mickey Rourke's tried (and largely succeeded) at squandering the goodwill of his comeback, there's no taking this performance away. It probably wouldn't my top ten or fifteen films of the decade, but doesn't need to. It just needed to be the best of 2008. Some runners-up that didn't make the list include In Bruges and Pineapple Express (both of which made my previous one) Wendy and Lucy, Son of Rambow, Rachel Gettting Married and The Visitor. Next up is 2009, where my crutch of referencing a previous list to inform these rankings falls by the wayside. From here on, the results get a bit crazier and more unpredictable.        


10. W.

"Stone paints (Bush) as an underachiever, full of self-doubt and burdened by expectations. In doing that, he sets the stage for the film’s most frightening realization: He’s just like us. And whether we want to admit it or not, there’s no guarantee we could have done a better job in the White House under similar circumstances. But more importantly, in being the first biopic to centered around a current sitting President’s legacy, we’re robbed of time, distance and historical context in examining the film, making for a fascinating character study." - 10/24/08


9. Gran Torino

"A lot of viewers had major problems with Eastwood treating racism and xenophobia as punch lines, which is completely missing the point. There are old, bitter bigots like Walt who toss around ethnic jabs for fun every day. And they think they're a riot. What Eastwood taps into with his performance (which if you look closer is a whole lot more than just growls and sneers) is that people like this are funny, just not in the way they believe themselves to be." - 5/22/09


8. WALL-E

"It helps that WALL-E, part Charlie Chaplin, part R2D2, is the most adorable onscreen creation since E.T. All the details of his personality and how they’re conveyed onscreen are amazing, like when he shakes uncontrollably and collapses himself into a box to hide when he’s frightened. We recognize his quirks, relate and empathize with him as if he were real, and the story becomes that much more involving because of it." - 7/10/08


7. Slumdog Millionaire

"The flashbacks span years with three different actors playing the characters at various points, tragic circumstances eventually separating them, until all paths lead to the moment Jamal appears on the show. As we’re given each question we’re also given the accompanying story behind it. They range from “Who invented the revolver?” to “Which historical figure is on the $100 bill?” The film constantly astonishes in how the answers show up in his life. One early query involving a Bollywood star, has a payoff that’s both touching, disgusting and hysterical all at the same time. We know the ending but it doesn’t matter. What matters is how Jamal gets to it, and that’s what kept my mouth open in amazement the entire time." - 12/19/08


6. The Curious Case of Benjamin Button

"An accident befalls a character and Fincher flashes back, showing us all the little, seemingly meaningless events that had to fall perfectly into place for that event to occur. Had one of those tiny circumstances not happened, there's no accident and the paths of those involved would have been considerably altered. Life is a series of windows, opening and closing at very specific times, which can be a source of both joy and unbearable sadness. We have control over it…and we don’t. That’s life, and this film is rich with every little detail of it." - 2/20/09


5. Frost/Nixon

"After a while we realize that Nixon’s obsession with “beating” Frost has more to do with him actually wanting to be him. Beyond simply being jealous of his youth and success, in Frost he sees the man he could have been if only he had the people skills. His fixation on every detail of the interviewer's life, from his shoes to his girlfriend, suggest what in Nixon’s personality really caused the Watergate break-in and why he so sloppily covered it up. For Nixon, he and Frost are really two sides of the same coin. Both have accomplished much in their given fields, with neither being taken seriously or respected in the slightest." - 2/12/09


4. Revolutionary Road

"Fans of Titanic who waited over a decade to see the re-teaming of Kate and Leo will probably want to hang themselves by the time the final credits roll. This is not an epic romance, or even a romance at all. Despite the fact it was misleadingly marketed as Titanic 2, there isn't a single romantic element in it. It's closer to a horror movie. Think Pleasantville meets Rosemary's Baby with a side helping of Mad Men thrown in for good measure." - 6/7/09


3. The Dark Knight

"While played by Ledger as a sick hybrid of Clockwork Orange's Alex and Sid Vicious of The Sex Pistols, the Joker still bares no resemblance to any villain previously committed to film. It's truly the definitive portrayal of this iconic character, with the actor making Cesar Romero and even Jack Nicholson look like clowns hired for a children's birthday party. Every moment he's on screen is pure terror and Nolan is smart enough to know the right dose of screen time to give him." - 7/20/08


2. Synecdoche, New York

"Watching, you might be reminded of more films exploring similar themes of mortality, human existence, forgiveness, love, and regret in very unconventional ways. But none like this. My mind immediately turned, in either method or execution, to pictures like Vanilla Sky, Magnolia, Adaptation, Stranger Than Fiction and I Heart Huckabees.  It shares its dark humor with Huckabees, as well a similarly whimsical John Brion score, but  Like Nicolas Cage's Kaufman doppelganger in Adaptation, Caden seems to represent the filmmakers' perception of himself and his failures.  This introduces an intriguing question. Can you criticize Kaufman for self-indulgence when the film is actually ABOUT a director's self-indulgence and how it destroys him?" - 3/11/09


1. The Wrestler

" This isn’t a feel-good movie about redemption, overcoming the odds or even winning the big match. If pushed for comparisons, it comes closest in tone to the gritty Raging Bull, digging so deep and pulling so few punches that the professional wrestling industry as a whole had no choice but to disown it. The accolades and superlatives for that accomplishment belong to Aronofsky, and especially Mickey Rourke, drawing on a well-documented lifetime of pain and suffering to give a performance for the ages." - 1/25/09

Top 10 Films of 2008
1. The Wrestler (dir. Darren Aronofsky)
2. Synecdoche, New York (dir. Charlie Kaufman)
3. The Dark Knight (dir. Christopher Nolan)
4. Revolutionary Road (dir. Sam Mendes)
5. Frost/Nixon (dir. Ron Howard)
6. The Curious Case of Benjamin Button (dir. David Fincher)
7. Slumdog Millionaire (dir. Dannny Boyle)
8. WALL-E (dir. Andrew Stanton)
9. Gran Torino (dir. Clint Eastwood)
10. W. (dir. Oliver Stone)

The Ten Best Films of 2008

First off, my apologies to 2007. I had previously stated that year wasn't a great one for films. How wrong I was. What do Into The Wild, There Will Be Blood, Zodiac, I'm Not There and Michael Clayton all have common? Well, they're all better than every single film on the list you're about to read. And in retrospect any year that finds No Country For Old Men, Grindhouse, The Lookout and The Mist all MISSING my top ten has to be considered pretty impressive. Even throwaway guilty pleasures like Alpha Dog and Smokin' Aces left a more indelible print than could have reasonably been expected. 2008, on the other hand, truly was a bad year and it's unlikely my opinion on that will change anytime soon. Compiling a list of the finest cinematic endeavors in a year this unfulfilling was a challenge.

It was also a year where I massively overpraised so many undeserving films that if there were such a thing as a critic's license, mine should have been revoked. I've since learned my lesson. In my defense though a critic is almost forced to give an impulsive response to a picture upon a single viewing without taking into account how the film will age in your mind after that viewing or hold up on repeated ones. So, AT THE TIME the analysis was right on the money. Now...not so much. Obviously, problems arise when you revisit certain films and realize they were far less than they first appeared.

Waiting until June to compile the list had a devastating effect for many of the movies that made the cut and made this process substantially more interesting. Is it really too much to ask that a movie holds up on a second or third viewing months later? Apparently so. Picking the top film was much easier than expected. All I had to do is watch many of these movies again and see them drop like flies. Only one survived. After years of doing this I think I've finally figured out the secret formula to determining the year's best film. I ask myself the following questions:

1. Is it a feat that can be duplicated? (if it is, chances are it isn't the year's best)
2. Can I watch it over and over again, discovering something new on each viewing?
3. Do I want to watch it RIGHT NOW? (regardless of the mood I'm in)
4. How difficult was it to execute?
5. Does it say something, meaningful, lasting and important?

Obviously, there's some wiggle room with those questions but they succeed in being objective, while still taking personal preference into account. Just reading them gives a major hint what that movie is this year. The truth is 2008 is likely to be remembered more for great performances than films. Sean Penn in the otherwise sour Milk. Micky Rourke's career resurrection in The Wrestler. Clint Eastwood in Gran Torino. And of course, you know who...in you know what. Those performances will stay with us. The films probably won't. I kept waiting for something brilliant to come out of left field and reaffirm my love for movies. I waited. And waited. But nothing.

It was a year where even the #1 film on my list was a disappointment of sorts and fell short of reaching its full potential. I'm not at all surprised what that film is, so much as the tumultuous road it took to get there. It's a tainted victory, but a victory nonetheless. Taking all this into account I've gone with a slightly different approach this year in adding a "WHAT'S WRONG WITH IT?" section for each selection to reflect the creatively uneven output of the past year. These films will justifiably be praised, but not without measured criticism that reflect the discoveries I made on subsequent viewings (most of which were negative).

It's time to right some wrongs. And now the next time someone asks me why I own so few DVD's I can just show them a list of last year's theatrical releases because this just proves how difficult it is for a movie to hold up on a second viewing, much less a third or fourth, and to do it years (or in this case even months) down the line. If you dislike brutal honesty I suggest you stop reading now. These are the best films of the year...and I'm using the term "BEST" very loosely.

10. Definitely, Maybe (Director-Adam Brooks)

Crafting a smart and entertaining mainstream American romantic comedy is becoming a lost art. Depending on which day you get me on I'm either really proud or profoundly embarrassed to say I'm a fan of the "chick flick." This is a reminder that in the rare cases it's done really well there's no shame at all in enjoying one (even if you're a guy). A rom-com mystery that kind of plays like a feature length film version of How I Met Your Mother, there's genuine doubt as to the film's central question of maternity. And who would have guessed Ryan Reynolds could be this likable as a lead?

You actually care about the lives and personalities of all three of the women (played by Elizabeth Banks, Rachel Weisz and Isla Fisher) and anyone watching is bound to have a rooting interest in who he ends up with. Interestingly, I found my allegiance on that issue has shifted since the first viewing. There's no obvious "wrong choice," which is why Adam Brooks' underrated script works so well. The early to mid-90's setting (often under-represented in movies) only helps its cause. It's the kind of movie where you can just shut off your brain and have a great time.

What's Wrong With It?
Chalk it up to extremely low expectations but, surprisingly, not much other than it's too lightweight to be considered anything meaningful. It touches on some life issues, none of which you'll be contemplating long after the film ends. But this isn't that kind of movie, nor does it need to be. It's one of the best romantic comedies to come around recently, but in just about any other year it wouldn't be cracking the top 10.


9. Gran Torino (Director-Clint Eastwood)

While other dramas this year strained to find social relevance or force fed a preachy message down our throats, star and director Eastwood actually bothered to intelligently explore some real issues that speak about the world we live in now. And he did it in a way that didn't condescend to the audience or over-sympathize of the situation, which would have been an easy route to take given the difficult material.

As the tough-minded, racist, Korean War Vet Walt Kowalski who begrudgingly takes a shy Hmong teen (Bee Vang) under his wing , Clint never tries to get us to like him. Instead he plays Walt as a man so stubbornly set in his ways that we have no choice but to accept him as he is, at the same time acknowledging what a damn fool he is by acting the way he does. We're just waiting for him to catch on and when he does the film enters unexpected suburban Dirty Harry territory. I have to be careful in calling this a "drama" because the film has more laugh-out loud moments and situations than the past few Jim Carrey and Will Ferrell comedies combined. Clint does a lot more than just grunt and grimace through this, although there's still plenty of that if you're interested. He even sings over the closing credits.

Nick Schenck's script walks a really fine line with the comic relief and it's destined to offend some, but Eastwood pulls it off. Christopher Carley is fantastic as the young priest who won't give up on Walt, when all signs say he should. I'd congratulate Eastwood for directing and producing two major films (this and Changeling) in the past year at almost 80 years old but he's one guy I don't want to get angry. So let's just say it's an impressive feat for someone any age.

What's Wrong With It?
Is it a comedy? A drama? A biting social satire? It's about a million things at once and while it's Eastwood's most interesting directorial effort since 1993's A Perfect World, it's all over the map in terms of what it's trying to be. Not to mention it's just plain strange and uncomfortable at times. We know what Eastwood is going for, but when the xenophobic slurs are THAT FUNNY and delivered with such impeccable comic timing by Eastwood doesn't the message get muddled...just a little bit?


8. WALL-E (Director-Andrew Stanton)

The first time I saw Andrew Stanton's WALL-E, I was blown away. The second time, much less so. But I'll always have that initial viewing for when just a few hours after leaving the theater I thought I had witnessed the kind of magical movie (reminiscent of early Spielberg) that just can't ever be topped. Then reality set in about a week later. You could argue Pixar bit off more than it could chew with some really deep material for a family film but that's preferable to condescending to your audience. While I don't know of any small child who could sit through it without getting restless, for fans of animation and Sci-Fi this was pretty much a cinematic dream come true.

What's Wrong With It?
I was SHOCKED how poorly this held up on a repeated viewing. So poorly that this went from being one of my favorites of the year to just barely making the list. Taking into account the film runs only 97 minutes, the story seemed to drag a little in the third act, making me wonder if those who claimed that Stanton couldn't deliver on the promise of its nearly silent opening 4o minutes may have been right. As "perfect" as all these recent Pixar movies seem to be and how everyone says they're breaking new ground, I have to ask why so many of them have a shelf life of a single viewing? And why do they FEEL so long despite barely clocking in at an hour and a half? While technically brilliant and emotionally satisfying, I'm starting to think they represent a "one and done" experience.

Is it possible that Pixar is just replicating the same movie over and over again with different characters but a similar recipe? It sure seems like it, although that's not such an insult when you consider how good they are at it. Their latest, Up, opened to predictably glowing reviews and massive box office, but I'm surprised just how little interest I have in seeing it. I'm Pixared out. Don't get me wrong though. Wall-E is easily one of the year's best and a tremendous film, just not nearly as tremendous as I originally thought.


7. Pineapple Express (Director-David Gordon Green)

Finally, the question is answered as to what would happen if a really gifted filmmaker "lowered" himself and decided to direct a stoner comedy. That filmmaker is David Gordon Green and in a year where nearly nothing met expectations the results are even better than we could have hoped. It's a buddy film. It's an 80's action movie. It's flat-out hilarious. Seth Rogen gives his most likable performance yet as slacking process server while James Franco's should-have-been-nominated supporting turn as the stoned out (but surprisingly good-hearted) Saul shows us all how funny he was capable of being if just given the opportunity. Its final act accomplishes what 2007's Hot Fuzz did, but much better.

What's Wrong With It?
No matter how well executed it is, it's still just a really hilarious (if extremely well-made) stoner comedy. That's it.


6. In Bruges (Director-Martin McDonagh)

The most underrated film of the year. Actually, the ONLY underrated film of the year. I saw this the same week I saw The Dark Knight and just never got around to reviewing it, something I've regretted since. That's ironic because Irish playwright Martin McDonagh's debut feature about two hitmen (Brendan Gleeson and Colin Farrell) looking for redemption in the small, boring Belgium town of Bruges as they await their next job, stayed with me longer than so many other 2008 releases. I had literally no interest in seeing it but did so on the basis of universally glowing recommendations. They were right.

The Oscar-nominated original script (HOW DID THIS LOSE TO MILK?) is an example of great screenwriting at its very essence. I cared about every character. The dwarf. The girlfriend. Ralph Fiennes' brilliantly rendered hitman who hates his wife. Even the town of Bruges feels like a living, breathing character. But more than that, I felt sympathy for their situation. Earned sympathy. There's a code of morals and ethics...even among contracted killers. McDonagh and his actors somehow find the humanity in this. And that bell tower scene...wow.

The Oscars may have gotten it all wrong but the Hollywood Foreign Press got it right recognizing this as one of the year's best and rewarding Farrell, who gives the performance of his life here. Anyone doubting this guy's chops as an actor needs to see this movie right now. And anyone still questioning the power of voice over narration as a storytelling device will be blown away by the powerful monologue that closes the film, as its the best piece of screenwriting this year.

What's Wrong With It?
There actually isn't much wrong with this picture. While this isn't so much a knock on the film per se, the crime/gangster genre has been revisited ad nauseam ever since Pulp Fiction was released in 1994. Did we really need another one of these? The film, as good as it is, is more an achievement in screenwriting than anything else and unfortunately just not big enough in scope or importance to rank anywhere near the top of this list.


5. Frost/Nixon (Director-Ron Howard)

Far from the stuffy Oscar bait it was promoted as, this was one of the most surprisingly taut and exciting pictures of 2008 and an intriguing look into the psyche of one of our most misunderstood historical figures. It's not that we were ever wrong about who Richard Nixon was or what he did, but I don't think we were ever quite sure exactly why he did it. The answer to the question is deeper and more complicated than it first appears and it's all contained in the Oscar nominated performance of Frank Langella as the disgraced former President and the equally impressive Michael Sheen as David Frost, the reporter who pushed him to the breaking point in a series of television interviews in the late '70's.

Adapting historical events to film is hard. Adapting them from a stage play might even be harder. The film's success is less dependent on Ron Howard's direction (which is fine but nothing special) than a complete embodiment of these men by the two actors. It's almost eerie how as the story wears on Langella seems to transform himself physically and emotionally into the President to the point where in the finals scene we feel like as if we're watching Nixon. Peter Morgan's script leaves us with the the feeling that these two almost needed each other in a way, wanting to take the other down to cleanse themselves of their own failures.

What's Wrong With It?
It's a history lesson. The more movies I see based on historical events the more I start to think that there won't ever be one that could top a year-end list (and I'd even go so far as to include Schindler's List in that club). Howard avoids the usual pitfalls of the genre and crafts an exciting piece of cinematic non-fiction but that we already know the outcome (and how little it yielded) hangs over the film like a dark cloud. We go to movies to escape from the real world, not immerse ourselves in a dramatic recreation of it. "Based on true events" is a tough label to shake.


4. The Wrestler (Director-Darren Aronofsky)

Welcome back Mickey Rourke. If years down the line no one remembers much from the last year in film (which is sadly a real possibility) they'll at least never forget Rourke's eerily personal and emotionally scarred portrayal of washed-up '80's wrestling superstar Randy "The Ram" Robinson. Marisa Tomei and Evan Rachel Wood shine, but Rourke is this movie. The thought that Nicolas Cage could have actually been cast in the title role instead is a scary possibility not even worth contemplating. We know who was born to play Ram. Aronofsky (in his most emotionally effective film to date) pulls back the curtain to show us how the wrestling business can chew up and spit out its performers and how for one of them leaving it is more painful than staying in, even if it could cost him his life.

The infamous "deli scene" is either my favorite or least favorite movie moment of the year, depending on whether you enjoy watching people struggling to survive in the most uncomfortable social situations imaginable. The saddest part of that scene isn't how it ends, but that Ram was actually really good at that job and almost seemed to enjoy it up until that point. How he translated his skills as a performer to the deli counter. It makes you wonder what else he could have been good at. If scenes like that don't win you Oscars, what does? Sorry Sean but that statue belongs to Mickey.

What's Wrong With It?
It's so depressing you'll want to hang yourself after the credits roll. Rourke's performance curbs a lot of that but if a movie is going to be this dark it better be full of huge ideas and big issues to think about when it's over. There really aren't any here. It's pretty cut and dry and doesn't lend itself to any kind of deep analysis. The film is primarily a showcase for Rourke, even though he does an incredible job in making it feel like it isn't. Looking back, Tomei's performance isn't the slightest bit Oscar-worthy. Also, while the film is technically superb, Aronofsky doesn't break new ground as the low budget indie faux-documentary style has been beaten into submission (cheap pun I know) by other films

Maybe it's just the wrestling fan in me talking but I can't help but think this movie was released about a decade too late, which could explain why it didn't quite strike the mainstream chord it should have. And while it brought some much needed attention to what wrestlers really do and sacrifice, it did so at the cost of reinforcing the worst stereotypes people have about professional wrestling.


3. Slumdog Millionaire (Director-Danny Boyle)

Last year's Best Picture Oscar winner about a peasant from the slums of Mumbai who goes on to win the Indian version of Who Wants to be a Millionaire? and find his lost love is a tale of two movies. The one Danny Boyle actually made and the one the media and the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences want to believe that he made because it fits so nicely into their perfectly shaped box of what crowd-pleasing, inoffensive entertainment is supposed to be. It's both the year's most overrated and underrated film at the same time. Simon Beaufoy's script (adapted from Vikas Swarup's novel, "Q&A") is ingenious in how it seamlessly shifts back and forth through flashbacks to reveal how 18-year-old Jamal (Dev Patel) knew the answers to all those questions and dissenters of the screenplay's supposedly "manipulative" structure forget that all the queries on a show like that are dependent on someone just simply paying attention to everything that's around them.

Though it didn't garner a single acting nomination, the performances are universally strong across the board with Anil Kapoor's work as the arrogant host going criminally overlooked by nearly everyone. Frieda Pinto does a good enough job looking pretty and seeming just unattainable enough. The best edited and scored film on this list by a landslide. That train sequence (set to M.I.A.'s "Paper Planes") is one for the vault. And regardless of what's been said everywhere it's not the fluffy "feel-good movie of the year." There's a lot more substance to it than that...I think.

What's Wrong With It?
When I watched this a second time I found myself staring at my watch waiting for key events to happen and when they did, the emotional reaction I had the first time was absent. I'd be curious to know if anyone else tried that and had the exact same "been there, done that" response I did. This tells me the script is primarily dependent on surprises, revelations and plot turns rather than real emotional truth. The movie seemed more mechanical and choreographed to me the second time, making me wonder if there is some truth in those plot manipulation claims.

And don't even get me started on the film being referred to as the "Obama of the Best Picture nominees," or worse yet, that we should all just embrace it because we're in a recession. Sure, it won the Best Picture Oscar...but FOR ALL THE WRONG REASONS. It's been just a few months and it already hasn't aged well. Unfortunately, the only thing people are talking about now in regards to the film are what prices the child stars are going for and how they can further be exploited.


2. The Curious Case of Benjamin Button (Director-David Fincher)

Just for the record, as a self-professed Fincher fanatic, here's where I stand: Better than Alien 3, Se7en and Panic Room. Worse than The Game, Fight Club and Zodiac. So no, despite my initail glowing overreaction this isn't going to be remembered as our greatest living director's masterwork. But I love it and it's a hell of a lot better than it's been given credit for. Haters of the film could only keep coming back to one argument: It reminded them of Forrest Gump. That's pretty weak. As if being reminded of that great film is a capital offense. It's an obvious shot at screenwriter Eric Roth, who penned both, and I can kind of see where they're coming from....to a point. Luckily the Academy got wise for once and ignored all of them, showering the film with 13 nominations. Their motivations behind that may be suspect as usual, but when it comes to rewarding the long overdue Fincher, I'll take it.

By taking what COULD HAVE BEEN another Forrest Gump in the hands of anyone else and making it darker and sadder, Fincher turns a movie about life into one about death. A protagonist aging backwards should be a showy gimmick and the film could have easily collapsed under the weight of its groundbreaking digital effects but because of Fincher's vision (and the nuanced performances of Brad Pitt and Cate Blanchett) it becomes something much more. For proof of just how much more, read F. Scott Fitzgerald's short story from which its based and marvel at how he and Roth took a somewhat meager and unformed conceit and turned it into an epic journey.

What's Wrong With It?
Not nearly as much as you've heard, but Roth's script is clearly the weak link here. The film is so technically well made that at times it's painfully obvious that Fincher's skills are far above some of the trivial circumstances presented in the screenplay (i.e. the sea boat captain stuff). While this had one of the better second viewings on the list I couldn't help but think I was completing a homework assignment while watching it just from the sheer density of it all. Movies today are just too long and we can probably add this to the long list of films that would be greatly improved by cutting just 15 or 20 minutes.

When Benjamin and Daisy end up "meeting in the middle" and we head into the brilliant final hour the film soars to heights so high that the earlier portions can't help but be damaged in comparison. Because we expect nothing less than perfection from Fincher each time out he'll always be in competition with himself, forcing us to compare this to his previous output. Such a comparison does this movie no favors. Despite these issues I desperately wanted to put this in the #1 spot, but doing so would be an endorsement of my favorite director's resume rather the actual film.


1. The Dark Knight (Director-Christopher Nolan)

It's overlong. Some of the action scenes are sloppily edited. The plot's too convoluted. Bale's performance is just adequate. It didn't meet the massive expectations. And, sorry, it's no masterpiece. So what is it about Nolan's film that sets it a league apart from every other movie released this year? It has just as many flaws as any other film on this list, but with one key difference: It's flaws MAKE IT A MORE INTERESTING FILM and add to the overall experience. They're the result of a filmmaker's reach exceeding his grasp in a brave attempt to give us something we've never seen before. For the most part he succeeded. Nolan should take a bow because he crafted the only film this year that gains in power with each viewing and the first movie in over ten years to top my list that didn't earn four stars from me when I saw it initially. Go figure. It was just that kind of year. Truthfully, after re-watching all the films on this list, I'm still not sure if any of them are deserving of four stars (as silly as that whole rating system is anyway).

In an unfortunate circumstance, when I saw The Dark Knight last summer it ended up being the single worst theater going experience of my life. I doubted the film could ever recover. But recover it did...and then some. The flaws I saw the first time haven't gone away exactly. They just mean less in the overall scheme of things. I've accepted that I'll never love this film as much as everyone else, but there's no question it was the most ambitious and important achievement of the year and a landscape changer. For a moment in July, 2008 that barrier separating the critical from the commercial briefly disappeared for the first time since the release of Titanic in 1997. Everyone was a part of something, regardless of race, age or gender. When I think back on all the most memorable film moments from 2008, all of them can be found in Nolan's film (including the one above).

For a while, even while my appreciation for the somewhat messy, overly ambitious film increased, I was still unsure whether it was really "robbed" of a Best Picture nomination. Watching the actual telecast I made up my mind. It was. Flaws and all, this was still a better movie than the other nominees. But one Oscar it should have never been up for is Best Editing because this movie is a great example of how lost time in the editing booth can stop a great film from being a masterpiece. Questionable choices in this area still prevent me from being on board like I want to be and I still say the movie doesn't really get going until the corpse of that crook dangles outside the Gotham Mayor's window (which still caused me to jump even on a fourth viewing).

Most feel the third act involving D.A. Harvey Dent's transformation into Two-Face is what should have been left on the cutting room floor or saved for another film, but I don't completely agree. There's too much over-explanatory mob focus in the first hour that could have easily been given the ax instead. Besides, it's hard to argue less screen time for Aaron Eckhart who leaves painful memories of Tommy Lee Jones in the dust.

What amazed me most were the surprises. The fate of the Joker. Of Rachel. Of Harvey. Of Jim Gordon. Writers Jonathan Nolan and David S. Goyer subverted all expectations of how we thought things would go down. And who could have guessed Gary Oldman would have given us that much in what was just expected to be a minor, throwaway role? His delivery of that speech at the end? Chills. Gyllenhaal for Holmes? A fair trade, but a much narrower victory for Maggie than anyone predicted.

You can't discount the role Heath Ledger's death played in the prism through which we view the film. To do that would be flat-out denial. So would be denying that his Oscar winning portrayal was worthy of all the hype accompanying it, regardless of the tragic circumstances. This is not one of the decade's best films. Not even close. But few performances this decade, supporting or otherwise, were as powerful and demonic as Ledger's. It was the one aspect that turned out better than anticipated, if that's possible.

Usually I'm not a huge fan of superhero movies, which is a good thing since this isn't one. Nolan directed a crime drama played completely straight and stripped of all the usual conventions associated with the genre. Hopefully we do get a sequel because I think he's capable of crafting something even better than this. Yet at the same time I'll admit to being kind of curious as to the direction another filmmaker could take the franchise. Now almost a full year removed from its release The Dark Knight plays as well as ever. It isn't perfect but it is groundbreaking, reaching higher and accomplishing more than any other film in a weak year.

Gran Torino

Director: Clint Eastwood
Starring: Clint Eastwood, Bee Vang, Ahney Her, Christopher Carley, John Carroll Lynch, Brian Haley, Brian Howe
Running Time: 116 min.
Rating: R

★★★ 1/2 (out of ★★★★)

If Walt Kowalski, the cranky bigot Clint Eastwood portrays in Gran Torino ever wrote a book I'd imagine the table of contents would look something like this:

I. Kids today don't know a f***g thing
II. Why Obama shouldn't be President
III. Buy American or I'll kick your ass
IV. In praise of Charlton Heston
V. I'll show you how to solve the immigration problem

You get the picture. But forget everything you've seen or read about Gran Torino, the legendary Eastwood's latest as a director and what he's claiming is his swan song as an actor. This isn't what you think it is and it turns out Dirty Harry has a surprising knack for comedy. The movie is as hilarious as it is emotionally gut-wrenching, not going where I expected nor using the means I thought it would to get there. That the film is as funny as it is will probably cause discomfort and disgust for more discriminating audiences and if you're lucky it may even cause you to ask yourself why you're laughing. That's a good thing. You should ask yourself because it's a valid question. There's nothing funny about hurling racist, xenophobic slurs....right? Yet Eastwood manages to get away with it all. More so, you'll probably end up liking and respecting him even more as an actor/director when all is said and done. If it is a career closer then it's a fitting one, not to mention his most bizarre role. And what a relief that the film doesn't over-sentimentalize anything and turns out to be as just as stubborn and uncompromising as its polarizing protagonist.

Retired auto worker Walt is still haunted by his days in the Korean War where he earned a silver star serving our country. The film opens with his wife's funeral, an emotional blow that makes him even more bitter and cantankerous than usual. The last white man in a Detroit suburb overrun by crime, time has passed him by as he sits on the front porch with his dog, a shotgun and a cooler of beer. Walt hates everyone but most of his disdain is directed at the Hmong who have just moved in next door, who he refers to about every 5 minutes as "gooks" and "zipperheads." Said epithets are usually accompanied with a growl, sneer and grimace. The remainder of his hatred is directed at his selfish and ungrateful sons (played by Brian Haley and Brian Howe) who want to push their old man into a "retirement community" while his own grand daughter can't wait for him to kick the bucket so she can decorate her dorm room with his furniture.

When the shy, impressionable Thao (Bee Vang) attempts to break in and steal his '72 Gran Torino as part of a gang initiation rite, Walt doesn't call the police. He's too used to serving out justice on his own. The Hmong family, indebted to Walt for accidentally protecting them from those local gangbangers, offer up Thao (or "Toad" as Walt calls him) as an indentured servant. Male bonding and a softening of Walt's character is expected. That happens...but not exactly how you'd think. If it did, the film would have descended into cheap sentimentality, but instead Walt's growing bond with Tao and his family does nothing to temper his penchant for hurling ethnic slurs. In fact, it does so little to temper it that he even invites Tao to join in when, in the film's most hilarious scene, Walt trades vulgar insults with his barber (John Carrol Lynch). Of course, the idea being that he wants to show Tao how to act like a man.

A lot of viewers had major problems with this development, believing Eastwood is treating racism and xenophobia as punch lines, which is completely missing the point. There are old, bitter bigots like Walt who toss around ethnic jabs for fun every day. And they think they're a riot. What Eastwood taps into with his performance (which if you look closer is a whole lot more than just growls and sneers) is that people like this are funny, just not in the way they believe themselves to be. Speaking only for myself, I was frequently laughing at Walt's pathetic cluelessness. How stupid he sounded rattling all those slurs off every five seconds. That's exactly what Eastwood was going for and he nailed it. If anyone actually wants to believe he's endorsing bigotry or we should all embrace ethnic name-calling as sport, that's not his problem.

Even more frustrating for some will be that a lot of the points Walt brings up during the film are right. In another comical scene when he advices Tao how to pick up women the situation is made funnier when we realize that his tips could work. Similarly, when he takes Tao to meet a prospective employer, telling him how he should act and talk he's right on the money for that given situation. It can be uncomfortable watching a character so full of hate be right about so many things, have so much to offer, yet go about it in such an abrasive way. As it can be watching material this dramatically heavy mixed with moments of comedy. But none of it ever feels tasteless or unnecessary.

Those around him don't so much excuse Walt's bigotry as just begrudgingly accept it as part of who he is. He isn't changing. And if you don't like it, fine. Only two characters in the film seem to see through it. One is a young priest named Father Janovich (Christopher Carley) who promised Walt's late wife he'd get him to confession, which proves much more difficult than anticipated. He underestimates Walt, but Walt REALLY underestimates him. They're more alike than he's willing to admit. The other is Thao's sister Sue (Ahney Her) who doesn't buy Walt's "bad guy" act for a second and will use her spunk and sarcasm to break through it. Their performances are as impressive as Eastwood's, who never betrays the audience's trust in his character by wussing out.

The movie doesn't take the cheap way out as it builds to a big showdown that wouldn't seem out of place in a Dirty Harry picture or one of Eastwood's classic westerns. Except this time the the setting and the stakes are far different...maybe higher. I liked how Walt handled the situation on his terms, yet still stayed stubbornly true to his character. Comparisons can be made between Walt and another movie anti-hero from this past year, Mickey Rourke's Randy "The Ram" Robinson from The Wrestler. Both men have been bull-headed in their proud devotion to something they love and now that it's gone, so are they. Walt may take a little longer to warm up to, but the respect Eastwood earns for him is no less.

After watching Gran Torino, something stays with you in a way that isn't so easily replicated by a lot of films released in 2008. It actually feels very relevant to the time we live in now and the problems we're facing. The so-called experts claim that in these dark days we want to go to the movies for an escape, rather then be bombarded with social issues in our backyards. That's true to an extent, but what's truer is that audiences want to see smart, entertaining films made well, regardless of whether they leave the theater skipping with delight. In Walt Kowalkski, Eastwood has created another iconic film character and this will likely be the role he'll be best remembered for. More importantly, he actually looked like he had a great time playing it. Eastwood the comedian? Who would have thought? At age 78 he's still finding ways to surprise us.

Academy Award Nomination Predictions

Whether it's Dreamgirls being shockingly snubbed for Best Picture two years ago or Tommy Lee Jones being announced as a Best Actor nominee for In The Valley of Elah last year the Academy Award nominations always seem to bring a few surprises. Some that no one can see coming. Just imagine the gasps in that auditorium if we hear the words, "DUSTIN HOFFMAN FOR LAST CHANCE HARVEY." Crazier things have happened. Or there could be no surprises at all. That's been known to happen too.

My choices for the five Best Picture nominees don't differ all that much from the prediction I made a couple of months ago, save for one. While I was dead-on in calling the meteoric rise of Slumdog Millionaire, I miscalculated with Revolutionary Road, which turned into a bigger awards disappointment than anyone could have predicted. Something like this is always tricky and almost requires a balance between playing it straight and taking some well-chosen risks. We'll see how I do.

Best Picture:
“The Curious Case of Benjamin Button”
“The Dark Knight”
“Frost/Nixon”
“Milk”
“Slumdog Millionaire”

Analysis: I have my fingers crossed that I'm wrong and the preposterously overrated Milk fails to earn a Best Picture nod, which isn't so far-fetched considering it's been losing a lot of steam lately. That's my one wish for the morning, as negative as it sounds. This category still isn't set in stone as The Reader, The Wrestler or even Gran Torino could easily sneak in. Doubt is also still a possibility. Button is the second most vulnerable. I haven't seen those four but I'm still confident any of them would almost have to be a better choice than Milk. I'm just not completely sold that voters will agree. And no, WALL-E isn't out of this yet.

Best Director:
Darren Aronofsky, “The Wrestler”
Danny Boyle, "Slumdog Millionaire"
Clint Eastwood, “Gran Torino”
David Fincher, “The Curious Case of Benjamin Button”
Christopher Nolan, “The Dark Knight”

Analysis: The picture and director nominations NEVER MATCH (as little sense as that makes). This means someone's getting snubbed. It'll be Gus Van Sant who has the least "directorly" film of the nominees. Sean Penn's getting all the credit anyway so voters will probably just assume he directed himself. This opens the door for Aronofsky. The Wrestler probably peaked too late to get the Best Pic nod so they'll want to reward it for something other than the acting and song categories. Besides, with names like Boyle, Fincher and Nolan there doesn't it seem weird NOT to have Aronofsky joining them? Ron Howard was overloooked before for Apollo 13 and now it'll happen again with Frost/Nixon. Acknowledging Eastwood in the twilight of his career is just too great an oppportunity for the Academy to pass up.

Best Actor:
Clint Eastwood, “Gran Torino”
Richard Jenkins, “The Visitor”
Frank Langella, “Frost/Nixon”
Sean Penn, “Milk”
Mickey Rourke, “The Wrestler”

Analysis: This is pretty cut and dry with the exception of one surprise. Actors make up a large voting block so I'm predicting they'll find it impossible not to nominate Richard Jenkins' understated but brilliant work in The Visitor. It was just too good. They'll see Brad Pitt's performance in Benjamin Button as an achievement in visual effects more than anything else. That film is already on shaky ground as it is so it'll get hit here. In a repeat of 1997 when he had to stand by and watch Winslet grab all the glory, DiCaprio will be shut out for Revolutionary Road.

Best Actress
Anne Hathaway, "Rachel Getting Married"
Sally Hawkins, “Happy-Go-Lucky”
Meryl Streep, “Doubt”
Kristin Scott Thomas, "I've Loved You So Long"
Kate Winslet, “Revolutionary Road”

Analysis: Mark my words: Angelina Jolie's getting snubbed for Changeling. If she didn't get a nomination for A Might Heart (a better received performance) she sure won't be getting one for this. Every year it seems they like to honor a boring accomplished actress no one cares about in a performance nobody saw. So it's essentially a coin toss between Frozen River's Melissa Leo and I've Loved You So Long's Kristin Scott Thomas. While it's bad timing for Hathaway that Bride Wars hit theaters just as ballots were being mailed out, she's sitting pretty after the Globe co-win and is actually considered a front-runner along with Streep.

Best Supporting Actor
Josh Brolin, “Milk”
Robert Downey Jr., “Tropic Thunder”
Philip Seymour Hoffman, “Doubt”
Heath Ledger, “The Dark Knight”
Dev Patel, “Slumdog Millionaire”

Analysis: A.K.A. the four actors who will be losing to Heath Ledger. Here's one case where it is actually just an honor to be nominated. If nothing else, Dev Patel will at least have a wild story to tell his friends. The only other outside possibility is Revolutionary Road's Michael Shannon but his buzz has completely died out.

Best Supporting Actress
Penelope Cruz, “Vicky Cristina Barcelona”
Viola Davis, “Doubt”
Taraji P. Henson, “The Curious Case of Benjamin Button”
Marisa Tomei, “The Wrestler”
Kate Winslet, “The Reader”

Analysis: No surprises here either. It's possible Doubt's Amy Adams or Rachel Getting Married's Rosemarie DeWitt could sneak in, but not very likely. A really thin category this year.

Best Original Screenplay
Mike Leigh, “Happy-Go-Lucky”
Dustin Lance Black, “Milk”
Woody Allen, “Vicky Cristina Barcelona”
Andrew Stanton and Jim Reardon, “WALL-E”
Robert D. Siegel, “The Wrestler”

Analysis: I'm not exactly sure how Dustin Lance Black's script for Milk is considered an "original" screenplay but it is, so therefore it'll be nominated (despite it being undeserving). Even scarier, it has a good chance of winning. I'll take it just so long as the film gets shut out of the Best Picture race.

Best Adapted Screenplay
Eric Roth, “The Curious Case of Benjamin Button”
John Patrick Shanley, “Doubt”
Peter Morgan, “Frost/Nixon”
David Hare, "The Reader"
Simon Beaufoy, "Slumdog Millionaire"

Analysis: Voters won't be able to think outside the box enough to be able to acknowledge The Dark Knight in this category. It'll get a the Best Pic nod and a handful of tecnical accolades but miss out here to more "literary" endevours like The Reader and Doubt.

The Best (And Worst) Movie Posters of 2008

While many (including myself) have been overheard complaining 2008 was a lackluster year for films, it was an incredible one for movie posters. Last year I couldn't even come up with 10 deserving posters to fill a list of the best, but this time around there was such a plethora of great choices that I had cheat and squeeze even more in there, plus come up with a couple of new special categories. I didn't give much thought to ranking them (not sure if I could) but my favorites are at the top, or rather the bottom. That I own three of the posters on here so far (which is a record for me in a single year) is a testament to just how strong the creative output was.

Even the bad posters were interesting in some way. As usual, "SIMPLE" was the rule of the day. Posters that used a simple, direct image to convey the spirit of the film (while still being visually interesting) fared the best. I've come to notice the ones that rely only on a big star's face (or in most cases their GIANT FLOATING HEAD) to sell the movie are always the worst. More has to be offered than just a big name and face to get attention. There were so many more posters I liked but the cream of the crop is represented below, as well as is the cream of the crap. Poster images provided by www.impawards.com



THE BEST...

Harold and Kumar Escape From Guantanamo Bay- NPH. On a unicorn. No more needs to be said. Hysterical. You know a poster's great when you could have left out the title of the film and we'd still know what it is.



College- Say what you want about the movie but they couldn't have possibly come up with a better image than this. For better or worse, we know exactly what we're getting. I love the simplicity and the tag line. It actually looks like something you'd see hanging in a dorm room, which was probably the point.



The Wrestler- When I first saw this poster I didn't like it at all. I thought it was boring and that banner hanging down on the right telling us to "WITNESS THE RESURRECTION OF MICKEY ROURKE" was an unnecessary distraction. But as the Awards season has worn on it's grown on me a little each time I see it, to the point now where I can't think of many posters this year as effective. What I thought was boring is instead elegantly simple, conveying the film's message in a single, striking image. And that quote on the right is something totally different than anything we've seen on a poster. It also uses a color scheme and font design you don't see everyday.



Synecdoche, New York- Charlie Kaufman written films are known for their big, crazy ideas so for his directorial debut it's appropriate the ambitious movie has one of the trippiest, most memorable one-sheets of the year. A life-size replica of New York City inside a warehouse? Huh? What? It got your attention. And no other poster looks like it. Love the blimp. And the critical blurb at the top has to be the longest I've ever seen on a poster. That took guts. It probably took that much space to even come close to explaining the movie. Just don't ask me to pronounce the title.



My Winnipeg- What's that guy doing out on the ledge? Who's the old lady? What's with the arrow pointing at him? Is the movie in black and white? I don't know anything about the film at all but this poster makes me want to find out. No lame photoshopping here. The unusual angle it was shot at is very cool as is what was done to the edges to make it look like an aged photograph. This one is as original as it gets.



Cloverfield- This is the first teaser poster for the film, before we knew anything, like the title who's starring in it, what it's about. And we don't need to. This striking image gives us all we need and want. It probably played a bigger role in the movie's success than many would like to admit.



Hell Ride- So maybe that "simple" rule can be thrown out the window for this one. Actually though, despite being very busy, it is simple. It lets us know simply that we're in for a grindhouse-like experience. Supposedly, it wasn't a very successful one from what I've heard but the poster at least got it right. I'm not sure how long I could look at it on the wall everyday without going blind but taken in a small dose it works exceptionally well.



The Bank Job- Move over Steve McQueen. This throwback design looks like it's right out of the 60's or 70's (which is when the movie's events take place). The off-white color and retro border are cool touches. One of the more underrated and understated posters of the year that also does the movie justice. Simple and effective.



Blindness- Very clever. Whoever thought of this deserves a raise. The eye chart idea is great enough on its own but having Julianne Moore reaching out for it from behind is a creepy effect. Not only the only poster on this list to use the transparent style (I'm sure you know what the other one is) but it's awesome nonetheless and would get someone who knows nothing about the film interested quickly.



Burn After Reading- No one will accuse this retro-throwback poster of being the most original of the year but you can't tell me it isn't slick and eye-catching. It's got that Hitchcock vibe going, which works and perfectly presents the tone of the film. The other character-centric versions weren't nearly as interesting as this.



Gran Torino- Talk about a picture being worth a thousand words. He's Clint Eastwood. He's cranky. He's 75. And he can still kick your ass.



The Dark Knight (Take Your Pick)- The Dark Knight had a wide variety of posters to choose from this year but these were by far the most memorable, and brilliant. I know very few people who don't own AT LEAST one of them. How fitting that a film that was in many ways a victim of its own expectations had them raised to even more unreasonable levels when these teasers came out. I don't think any film could have lived up to them. Speaking of which:



Funny Games- If the actual film were as good as the poster, Michael Haneke would be preparing an Oscar acceptance speech right now. I liked the film a lot but wouldn't blame anyone who walked away from that film expecting more on the basis of this unsettling, terrifying image. On the other hand, you could reasonably argue that the movie was as uncomfortable and polarizing as the image. And look what they did with the credits. Forget about this being the best poster of the year, this should rank among the best of the decade.



THE WORST...

Changeling- Help!!! Angelina's going to eat me!



Seven Pounds- Who cares what its about? Will Smith's in it! I do appreciate that the studio going to great lengths to conceal the plot in trailers and commercials but unfortunately, that tactic doesn't play nearly as well in print. There is such a thing as too much restraint.

Body of Lies- Here's a movie whose poster somehow actually lives up to its lazy, generic direct-to-DVD title. Of all the posters on this list this is one that most make me want to flee any theater showing the film. It's like the designers gave up and said, "Well, the movie's gonna suck anyway." The others featuring Crowe and DiCaprio solo were even worse.



The Women- It takes a lot of work to make a group of reasonably talented and attractive actresses look this foolish and ugly in a poster. This features so much airbrushing it would make Maxim covers look like mug shots. And is that Annette Bening? I swear I couldn't even tell. It's also a cluttered, cut-and-paste mess. If the movie's as bad as this suggests I'm scared to death.

My Best Friend's Girl- You know it's bad when even Dane Cooke himself commented on his blog how embarrassing it is. Less a poster and more an ad for how to abuse Photoshop. Apparently, Kate Hudson now not only stars in bad movies, but bad posters as well. Her almost equally awful Fool's Gold poster just missed the list.



AND THE WEIRDEST...

Frost/Nixon- Homicidal maniac David Frost sets his sights on future Presidential candidate Bob Dole in this taut, psychological horror/thriller from 1985. Okay, not exactly, but can you blame me? I wasn't sure whether this belonged in the "best" or "worst" so I just put it here. If they were looking to recapture the time period during which the events of the film took place (even if they're a decade late) then this might be the most brilliant poster of the year. If not, then it's among the funniest I've ever seen. So either way, it's a win. The photo and style of print makes it look like one of those cheesy VHS covers from the 80's. And how about Langella's C. Montgomery Burns pose? Hopefully this will be the DVD cover art, or better yet, just release it on VHS! But what I really want to see is a film set in the 80's with this poster on someone's wall in the background. I might have to own this, except I worry after looking at it for a week the joke will get old. Taken on its own merits it's just a hilarious misrepresentation of the film but when you consider said film is one of the biggest, most serious Oscar contenders of the year then it suddenly seems a whole lot more ridiculous. Don’t know what they were thinking but I'm glad they did it.




Valkyrie- Ocean's 14...with Nazis!



BEST FAKE POSTERS (These Aren't Real But Should Be)
The Dark Knight Returns- If Nolan decides to go for one more sequel he could do a lot worse than looking to this poster for inspiration. It had me fooled. And better than a few of the best ones above.
(Source: Cinematical)



Wonder Woman- I never seriously entertained the idea that Megan Fox could be a viable candidate for the role...until seeing this. Now THAT'S a good Photoshop job.
(Source: www.wonder-who.com)