Showing posts with label Avatar. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Avatar. Show all posts

Friday, 29 January 2010

Recent Reviews Return!

Well, it's been a long time since our last post.
Too long.
But we're back, with more determination to chronicle our favourite things to watch, listen to, and look at than ever! Our proper 2010 reviews will start soon, but for now here's a brief round-up of three films that caught everyone's eye over the Christmas break. Let's start with the best of the three. Let the wild rumpus start!
Where the Wild Things Are

We were all wondering how Spike Jonze was going to turn one of the best-loved (and shortest) children's books of all time into a full-length feature. Well, with great care, skill and affection is the answer. The film starts as Max (Max Records) builds an igloo outside his house. He starts a snowball fight with his older sister's friends to get their attention, but in the ensuing melée the igloo is destroyed. Tearful and humiliated, Max wrecks his sister's room. When his mother (Catherine Keener) returns home, she scolds him but forgives him, and Max's mood improves. The following night, Mom doesn't pay enough attention to him while cooking dinner for her new boyfriend (a blink-and-you'll-miss-him Mark Ruffalo), and Max acts out. When Mom yells, Max runs out of the front door.

After crossing a great sea, Max lands on an island and meets the Wild Things. After convincing them not to eat him by telling them he's a King, he becomes their leader. He promises that he will help them build a fortress that will keep out feelings of sadness. But how long does he hav
e before they realise that he is not in any position to promise total happiness?

There really is a lot to love about Where the Wild Things Are. It's nice to see a Jonze film that embraces beautiful landscapes as opposed to claustrophobic rooms and corridors. As the wild things run riot through the forests, pulling up trees and hurling mud-clods, it's easy to forget that this is the man who brought us the cramped, wet portal into John Malkovich's brain. The wild things themselves are also a triumph. Surprisingly emotive, you never question the reality of these creatures. This is helped enormously by the incredibly strong voice cast. Each of the wild things represents a characterstic, and the actors are chosen accordingly. The cast of voice-actors is superb, with James Gandolfini (short-tempered Carol), Catherine O'Hara (bitter Judith), Lauren Ambrose (kindly KW), Forest Whitaker (good-natured but slow Ira), Chris Cooper (sensible Douglas), and Paul Dano (whiny Alexander). It's also worth noting just how good Max Records is as Max. The character isn't always sympathetic, he's often bratty, making him just like a real little boy. His interaction with Carol is especially superb, as Max recognises aspects of himself, which is both exciting and scary.

There has been some concern over how scary the film is. Well, there is a strong element of danger but nothing too much for children. I don't think it's just me whose fondest memories of the films watched as a child are those films that had a scary aspect to them. These moments are balanced with moments of humour and moments of touching emotion. Jonze and his team have succeeded in making the wild things recognisably human, despite their rough exteriors. It's a triumph, and enough to make you want to howl in appreciation.



Next up,
Sherlock Holmes
Which is, of course, Guy Ritchie trying to prove that he can make a film about something other than London gangsters. The choice of director seems odd, and frankly a lot of other filmmakers could have done a better job of it, but it's entertaining enough. He's helped no end by Robert Downey Jr. in the title role and a surprisingly good Jude Law as Watson. Their dialogue deliberately recalls Withnail and I, and there are few actors who can do verbosely sozzled as well as Downey Jr. The plot is a fun mix of the supernatural and procedural, making good use of the lamp-lit London sets. Come to think of it, lamp-lit late-1800s London sets always look good.
Even From Hell got that right. The plot is nothing too complicated: Evil Lord Blackwood (an under-used Mark Strong) is put to death for sacrificing young women for godless, wicked purposes. He promptly rises from the grave, and it's up to Holmes and Watson to stop him from completing his murders and his nefarious plan. Rachel McAdams fares well as tricksy love-interest Irene Adler, and Eddie Marsan lends some needed grit as Inspector Lestrade.

So, what's gone wrong? Well, for one thing, Ritchie's need to place his visual stamp on the film gets irritating fast. When Holmes narrates a forthcoming beating in the opening minutes in slow-motion, before putting it into effect in regular speed, it's a neat gag. When it keeps happening, the novelty has gone. And bare-knuckle boxing? Really?

While Downey Jr.'s accent does tend to wander, it's such a mannered performance that it
somehow works. But as the plot moves towards its conclusion, a sense of urgency is lacking. Blackwood is kept offscreen for much of the movie, and Strong is effective enough when he appears that we miss him when he's gone. Try and remember exactly what he was trying to do after you leave the movie, though. Meanwhile, Hans Zimmer's score strives for wacky and kooky but ends up being intrusive.

All that being said, it's entertaining enough. The two leads have a good chemistry, they're given good dialogue to work with, the supporting cast is pretty solid and there's some nice detail in the production design. It's just a shame it was given to Ritchie to direct.



Finally, there's

Avatar
I wonder if I was ever going to like Avatar. I wanted to in the beginning, before all the hype. I will admit I was one of the naysayers when the first trailer arrived, and everything I heard after that reinforced my belief that it would be a disappointment. After seeing it in 3D IMAX, my opinion stayed the same. It's a wasted opportunity

Now, my blog co-author and I agree that, if you are going to see Avatar, you should see it in 3D at the cinema. It certainly looks good. But, having seen My Bloody Valentine and Coraline at the cinema, I'm familiar with 3D movies. I realise that Avatar fans would probably be upset at hearing the film mentioned in the same breath as MBV3D, but, honestly, I enjoyed the slasher movie more.

The plot, such as it is, is the story of Jake Sully, a paraplegic ex-marine who is called to Pandora to replace his identical twin in the Avatar program, which allows humans to walk around the planet's poisonous surface while looking like the native race, called the Na'Vi. Sully's supposed to be giving the military a way in so they can mine the precious Unobtanium (Yeah. I know.), but falls for beautiful Neytiri, and decides to join forces with the natives to keep the evil soldiers from destroying the beautiful home world

So, yes the film looks good. Great, even. Eye-popping colours, visuals, and you feel like you're there, for some of the scenes at least. But my problem with the film was with the plot. If you want to be kept on your toes by a film's narrative, skip this. At no point during the long running time are we in the dark about what's going to happen in the next ten, even fifteen minutes. Is Sully going to fall in love? Is she going to love him back? Is Sigourney Weaver's gruff, smoking scientist going to warm to Sully after some early insults? Are the marines going to stab him in the back?

Sam Worthington is one of those actors who seems to be given the "star of tomorrow" tag, even though this is his second big blockbuster after Terminator Salvation. He was the best thing in that film, and is solid here too, although his American accent frequently slips. Zoe Saldana is great as Neytiri, all primal fierceness, while Weaver does well in one of the better-written parts. There's also a surprisingly good turn from Michelle Rodriguez in the under-written "Bad-ass chick" part of Trudy. Of course, the baddies have all the fun, as Giovanni Ribisi does oily glibness as company man Selfridge and Stuart Lang hams it up as the ruthless Colonel Quartich.

I can't call Avatar a disaster, and I can't call it a masterpiece. It just is, really. Some of the sequences are amazing, visually. But the predictability issue, the bad script, it all just makes it as hollow as a video-game cut-scene. As a film, it seems to exist purely for Cameron to develop this new technology. The last time that happened was with The Abyss, a similarly over-long movie, poorly written about misunderstood creatures and military bad guys in an unfamiliar world....at least that had Ed Harris.


It's now the top grossing film of all time, so I suppose this opinion doesn't really count for much! Maybe we'll be the tip of the backlash spear!

We'll be back soon with more recent reviews, lists, and rantings and ravings!

Sunday, 22 November 2009

Recent Release Reviewed!!!: Avatar vs. Inception

***Disclaimer: Okay, just to stress, this article is about the trailers released so far for these two films. I have not been blessed enough to see any more of these two than any other human being is able to. Nor am I reviewing some crazy mash up of the two – though that would be pretty tantalizing.***

Now that’s over.

Like most film-fans, I’d been waiting with some anticipation for the return of Jim Cameron. Titanic aside, this was the man responsible for some of my best loved childhood movies (True Lies, Terminator 1 & 2 – what that says about my childhood, I’ll leave you to decide) and I was keen to see his famous temper fly with a new set of actors. Also, I was hoping for him to re-cast Michael Biehn in something. That man doesn’t get used enough. So after rumour upon rumour of a live-action remake of Battle Angel Alita, Mr Cameron throws a curveball and sends Avatar our way.

Simultaneously, also working off the bat of one of highest grossing films of all time (hur hur), Christopher Nolan has decided to let us in on his new work, Inception. Not much mind, the whole affair has been pretty hush hush, especially considering the dizzy heights reached by his last movie and therefore the increased interest. Despite the similarities these two directors have in regards to their previous films, the two couldn’t be travelling down more differing paths if they tried. Overall the sentiment leaked by both these films from the studios is that, in reward for their successes, they’ve been let off the leashes, allowed to take us to places only limited to their imaginations. I think that it’s incredibly interesting that, not only that two filmmakers are getting this extremely rare chance at the same time, but that we get chance to really see what these two personalities are really about.

James Cameron’s latest Avatar trailer opens with Jake Sully, our protagonist, wheel-chair bound, being told of a great opportunity off world. Cue an incredibly detailed, awe provoking shot of said planet. A voiceover begins where Jake tells us of his desire for a cause ‘worth fighting for’, whilst we feast our eyes on some bizarre pastiche of Aliens and the Lion King. In case you couldn’t see where this story is heading, some very nice military men are present to bring us up to speed. This planet is Pandora, it has floaty rocks and the local people, the 10 foot tall, bright blue, not the most realistic looking Na’vi, are pretty darn tough to kill apparently. This is unfortunate because they live on top of a resource which the military find very lucrative. What are the chances eh? So what’s the military’s plan? Well, they’re going to let Jake take control of a genetically engineered version of a Na’vi and send him in to infiltrate the camp. Apparently doing this will ensure that Jake gets his real legs back. From here things get a bit Dances with Wolves and Jake becomes accepted as one of the tribe, choosing them over the military. What’s made him decide this? Well, there is love involved, presented to us using some shots very reminiscent of the ‘Can You Feel the Love Tonight?’ scene in the Lion King – this time with bigger cats’ eyes. From here on out, we witness battle scenes akin to the Ewoks vs the Imperial Guard from Return of the Jedi, but with both sides jacked up a notch. In fact, the military here seem like a direct evolution from the destructive force from Apocalypse Now. After some confusion in the middle of the trailer as to which side Jake is playing for, the trailer ends with confirmation that he is with the Na’vi. Cut to title. End.


Summing up the Inception trailer is much easier. For a start it’s barely a minute long and, unless the movie is just a collection of unrelated images, it gives nothing away to its plot. Opening with the sort of themed adaption of the Warner Brothers’ logo that we’ve come to expect with its high profile projects, Inception takes place in a big city – looking quite similar to the Dark Knight’s Gotham. A spinning top spins, Leonardo DiCaprio looks out of a helicopter window, Cillian Murphy (at least, I think it’s him) gets dragged away, gravity goes a bit weird, Joesph Gordon Levitt (*sigh*) runs at some one, Leo looks at the skyline, gravity continues to be odd, Joseph Gordon Levitt continues wrestling in said gravity, Leo wakes up, titles appear in an overhead view of a city. That’s pretty much it. I don’t think I’ve left anything out, though, given the cryptic nature of the trailer, if I have, it may just unlock the whole puzzle. Joking aside, it doesn’t reveal much but it has mystery to it. Overall, it is a very enticing trailer.

It has been greatly amusing and also surprising to read the quotes from the respective filmmakers about their projects. Both of them are shaping the direction that Hollywood films are heading down, even if James Cameron is the only one shouting about it. Despite all of Avatar’'s grandiose designs on representing the future in how blockbusters look and its grotesque budget ($500mil anyone?), it’s actually the more intimate project. Cameron has deliberately kept the sizes of his crew small in order to keep ‘consistency’1 with the work. Even on the current hot topic of 3D in cinemas, Nolan agrees that it is more ‘intimate’.2 Ironically, a $500 million film is James Cameron’s idea of a personal project, where as a small, intelligent film coming off the success of the Dark Knight, represents ‘grandeur’ and a ‘larger than life’ approach to filmmaking.3


Quality wise, there is no contest between these trailers. With respect to Mr. Cameron, his desperate attempts at ‘photorealistic’ images have really disappointed here. Sure, when looking at any shot of Avatar, your breath can be taken away quite easily with the amount of detail crafted into each landscape, however, compared to the detail of an IMAX camera, it looks nothing but cheap and, more importantly, fake. I personally cannot submerge myself into this world because it never suspends my disbelief. Considering that Cameron has been away for so long working on this film, the Na’vi themselves look beneath anything Pixar has put out during the last 5 years. However, after years of supporting Nintendo over Microsoft, Sega and Sony (I think I was one of the only people in my town with a Gamecube), I’m well versed in the argument that looks aren’t everything; in fact my main issue with Avatar is far more fundamental.

After Titanic, James Cameron has effectively been give free licence to make whatever he wants. Whatever story fascinated him, held his attention, made his imagination fly, he could bring to the screen and not one executive at any studio would have stood in his way. He chooses to bring Avatar – what does this say about him? Granted, I have not seen the film, but based on the information presented in interviews, soundtrack listings and the trailer, this looks like a bland and insipid motion picture. For all his attempts to present it as high art (3 hour running time), it looks just as shallow as any Michael Bay robot destruct-a-thon. One feels that, although like Guns N’ Roses’ Chinese Democracy, the level of hype is set so high that Avatar could not possibly live up to it, it wouldn’t hurt if it didn’t look so rushed. To me, the attitude that the trailer gives off is one of indifference. I’m well aware this is not the case, but in my mind I could quite easily picture James Cameron spending the majority of his 10 year sabbatical playing video games and then suddenly remembering that he had to make another film – which is my only explanation as to why this film looks so much like Halo.

My feelings looking at Inception are quite different. Here we have a filmmaker at the very top of his game, presenting us with a story that he obviously wants to tell. More importantly, he can tell us it in a way such that we want to hear it. Herein lays the difference. Christopher Nolan has our appetites whetted and he knows it. By forcing himself and his cast into a vow of silence, he is actually trying to make the film itself a new experience – something that Avatar desperately wants to be. By the time Avatar comes out, all its secrets will no doubt have been revealed to be not very spectacular at all, whereas Inception will be an enigma. This is of course only my two cents, but come December 18th, I’ll be surprised if people are queuing up to see anything more than big battle scenes, predictable storylines and hammy acting, all in “glorious” 3D.


1) http://www.aintitcool.com/node/31191
2) http://www.collider.com/entertainment/article.asp/aid/8567/cid/13/tcid/1
3) Ibid.