Here's a rundown of movies I've seen in the past month-and-a-bit.
Sherlock Holmes! - Liked RDJ, but he came off a little too Tony-Stark-But-British in a few parts. Everyone else was pretty good. Rachel McAdams was my favourite, I think. - First quarter of the movie after the opening credits moved kind of slow. I found myself bored for a while, and then things started to pick up. - The colours and atmosphere were really well-realized. - Loved the music! Good god, why haven't I bought that soundtrack yet? - Overall: Pretty decent. Didn't love it, but it was definitely enjoyable.
Shutter Island! - From a technical standpoint, bang-on. This IS filmmaking. The cinematography, the sets, the lighting, the costumes, the music (again, LOVED the music, especially its usage in the opening), the acting, the direction - all very solid. - From a story standpoint, good, but a little disappointing at the end. From the first trailer, I suspected it would just be that. I tried to tell myself it wouldn't just be that. It was just that. - Okay, to be fair, the last important line of the movie saved it from being an entirely standard that. Good job that was in there. - Those WWII flashbacks were truly disturbing. Good lord. - Overall: Really great if you're not familiar with these kinds of stories, just pretty good if you are.
Tron! - Yes, yes, I hadn't seen the original Tron up until now. Before the Tron Legacy teaser came out, I barely know what it was other than it sounded like ReBoot and involved lightbikes or something. - I'll say up front: it sure wasn't as good as ReBoot, that's for sure! Not for lack of trying, though. I can see all the work that went into this thing, as described on the Greatest Movie Ever Podcast. - The acting was probably some of the cheesiest and most wooden that I've seen in aaaaaaaaaaaaaages. Oh my god. Except Jeff Bridges. Jeff Bridges is, and (it seems) always has been, the man. - Found the flow of the story difficult to follow sometimes, even though when you boil it down, it's incredibly simple. Pacing never quite felt right. - At the very least, really did enjoy the visual look of the film. It's true that nothing else really looks like this. - Overall: I can see why this was so important and groundbreaking, but it will probably never be one of my personal favourites. Still want to see what Tron Legacy will be like, though.
Defendor! - THIS - OH MY - HOLY - SHIT, MAN - OH WOW - WHY AREN'T YOU WATCHING THIS NOW? - OH RIGHT, THE AMERICANS DON'T GET IT ROLLED OUT BEYOND, LIKE, LOS ANGELES YET. - GO TO L.A.! SEE THIS! NOW! - AT THE VERY LEAST, ANTICIPATE SEEING IT WHEN IT EITHER ROLLS OUT OR GOES TO DVD IN APRIL! - *ahem* - For starters, Woody Harrelson, much like Jeff Bridges, is the man. I love that he can go from bad-ass dude Tallahassee in Zombieland to the sweet, mentally challenged (but still bad-ass when he puts his mind to it) Arthur in this, and not seem even kind of like the same person in either. That's the mark of a great actor. His portrayal here largely carries the movie. So many facets of this man's personality and ticks, and they all come off so naturally on-screen. He can make you laugh. He can make you cry. He can make you feel like cheering. - And it's not just him! There are some equally great supporting players around him the whole way through. The characters played by Kat Dennings, Sandra Oh, and Michael Kelly all feel like very real people. Elias Koteas's character, Dooney, is maybe a bit more of a stereotypical "corrupt undercover cop," but he's still very enjoyable to watch, especially whenever he's confronted by Arthur/Defendor. - The script and direction are really good as well. The movie goes from a pretty clear superhero parody at the beginning (complete with backlit smoke, running on rooftops, and overblown music) and pretty organically turns into a very sincere, often dark character study and musing on the nature of vigilantism/heroism. There are a couple of gaffs here and there where the switches in tone don't work quite so well, but on the whole, playing with the different tones works well. - The whole climax, while definitely the least believable bit in the movie, is totally satisfying. Kind of Gurren-Lagann-ish in a way (not the end of Gurren spefically; just that feeling of going up against impossible odds and kicking ass). - Overall: The first truly awesome movie I've seen for 2010. As far as a deconstruction of superheroes go, I'd go so far as to say I liked it more than The Dark Knight (at least the Batman and Two-Face parts, anyway; maybe not the Joker parts). Seriously, see it if you ever get the chance.
I finished watching my first Sidney Lumet film (12 Angry Men, Murder on the Orient Express, Dog Day Afternoon) and I am supremely impressed. It was Serpico and it was really, really good. That man went through so much just to expose evil, idiotic corruption in his dept. and reveal them for what they really were. The fact that he was a real person, just amplifies my respect for him. What should I see next of his because I want to go on a Lumet streak: 12 Angry Men, Network, Murder on the Orient Express, or Dog Day Afternoon?
I watched Night at the Museum 2: Battle at The Smithsonian last night, and I liked it. It was funny!
I found myself able to suspend my disbelief at everything coming to life but where I could not suspend my disbelief was that no one was there. Not in the buildings (security guards?) and not even on the mall!
I watched Night at the Museum 2: Battle at The Smithsonian last night, and I liked it. It was funny!
The other day I needed a lot of reference for drawing the American Museum of Natural History, so I grabbed Night At The Museum, and I ended up actually watching it. I can't really say that it was good, but I did not hate it.
I found myself able to suspend my disbelief at everything coming to life but where I could not suspend my disbelief was that no one was there. Not in the buildings (security guards?) and not even on the mall!
That's an interesting thing -- to me, it makes perfect sense, but you hear people complain about it all the time -- "I just don't buy the 'mutant registration act'." "Oh, but you buy mutant powers?!?" As if those things function the same way in the narrative. It's one thing to accept a fantasy element that rewrites the rules of the universe -- it's a completely different thing to accept characters acting in a way that people just don't act. You can stretch reality all you want, but characters and their actions need to make sense, and be consistent.
I saw Let the Right One In last night. A Swedish vampire film, for those who don't know. Le gasp! A vampire movie done well? It played an interesting balance between a charming look at a young boy growing up in Sweden, and grotesque violence. It's not a fast movie by any means, though it does have its tense moments A beautiful movie though, every shot was was just gorgeous in color, in staging. Really visually satisfying. Was a little bit disappointed that the ending wasn't darker, but they did leave that interpretation open, so I appreciated it. Overall: solid, enjoyable movie, well worth seeing for a different take on the old monster.
Are you kidding me? Also, you don't have to space your sentences out like that.
I just feel like they were developing Oskar in one direction that they ended up leaving open. It's not so much that the ending wasn't dark enough, it's just a development I thought would've been really interesting would have made the ending much darker by consequence. Also I apologize for the spacing.
I finally saw Avatar. It was a solid, entertaining film.
It's kinda sad to me that my family telling me the movie was pretty good didn't inspire me to see it, but you, someone who I don't know personally, praising the film has more of an impact on my desire to see the movie...
Wow. You are the second-to-last person I expected to say that.
Seriously? I liked Dances with Wolves, I like scifi, I like scifi action. I also enjoy dragons. The movie was a solid film. Not too deep, but definitely an engaging, well-executed work. Its flaws are no more manifold than many other movies.
It also did a number of the things I enjoy in scifi anime. They spent a lot of time on the mechanical and technical design usedthroughout the movie. There were tons of little details (the monitors, airlocks, vehicles, weapons, etc...) used effectively to make a believable scifi world. And, with the exception of the stereotypical "incompetent suit bad guy," the characters were interesting and, for what the movie was, well-executed.
Many of the complaints I hear about this movie boil down to "it didn't have a tragic ending, which means it wasn't deep." I don't buy it. Furthermore, the resolution was properly foreshadowed without being overly transparent. The majority of the rest of the complaints seem to be the exact same ones made about Titanic back in the day, which I can only write off as haters hating.
Furthermore, the resolution was properly foreshadowed without being overly transparent.
I thought it was painfully transparent, actually.
I don't necessarily have a problem with transparent movies, but I do have problems with extended transparent plots. Basically, it would have been better if it was a shorter film.
I do agree about the attention to detail and so forth. Lots of cool sci-fi guns and stuff blowing up. I did enjoy that. As I said, everything would have been fine if it didn't drag on so damn much. There were multiple points where I found myself thinking, "OK, I get it. Move on."
I really enjoyed the world that was created in Avatar, but I feel the same way as Pete. You knew exactly where the story was going after about 30 minutes in. I also felt that it could have been paced a lot better. I was checking my cell phone about 20 minutes in and trying to figure out when it was going to end, I was so bored. Of course, the pacing problem could have been remedied with about 45 minutes cut from the movie.
And, with the exception of the stereotypical "incompetent suit bad guy," the characters were interesting and, for what the movie was, well-executed.
I feel the complete opposite, the characters seemed like nothing but archetypes to me. The only character I actually liked was Sigourney Weaver's character.
Many of the complaints I hear about this movie boil down to "it didn't have a tragic ending, which means it wasn't deep." I don't buy it. back in the day, which I can only write off as haters hating.
I haven't heard anyone say that, and that is a really ridiculous thing to say. A movie does not need to have a tragic ending to be deep.
One last note, the Na'vi looked way too cartoony when compared to the rest of Pandora. They could have used a better design.
My main gripe with Avatar is that it focuses to appease the lowest common denominator. Almost every single aspect of the film is caricatured to cartoonish level that it's almost insulting. Both the Na' vi and the military/private military group are simplified to their most basic elements to the point that a lot of nuisances of such a situation, if it did occur, would be lost in translation so to speak. The Na' vi act way too peaceful and pure for a "savage" pre-industrial culture and the military is portrayed as only aggressive and culturally blind. These over simplifications are used to manipulate the audience in a way to make various emotional high points of the film resonate more firmly in the average film-goer's mind.
A great point that has been made is that the very scene after the two main character's exotic love scene is one of destruction and violence. Surprise, surprise, just how Cameron executed it in Titanic. Additionally, I'm going to have to take exception to the idea that the characters are interesting. There is not a single individual in this film which I could not predict their out-come at the end of the flim from the moment they were introduced on screen. The evil, culturally ignorant commander, the greedy businessman who is willing to sacrifice a bit of his humanity for profit, and the compassionate scientist who only wants to learn the "mysterious and ancient culture" plus her quirky assistant. One dimensional and boring if you ask me.
One last note, the Na'vi looked way too cartoony when compared to the rest of Pandora. They could have used a better design.
That's because they were designed that way to be perfect jack-off material. They look very cat-like to make them appeal to our innate compassion for cutesy things. You wouldn't give a fuck about the Na' Vi if they looked like this:
That's because they were designed that way to be perfect jack-off material. They look very cat-like to make them appeal to our innate compassion for cutesy things. You wouldn't give a fuck about the Na' Vi if they looked like this:
It would have been a bit more poignant at the very least.
My main gripe with Avatar is that it focuses to appease the lowest common denominator...
See, like Rym, I don't necessarily think that's the movie's failing. Most movies boil down to simple elements, and are caricatured to that level. I think it was more pronounced in Avatar because the film was so long. You had more of a chance to digest everything that was going on, and that also gave you time to realize "Wait a minute, I've seen this before."
Again, cookie-cutter films have their place. Nobody criticizes Iron Man because it's a derivative work. We know that going in. If you're going to be derivative, just give us what we want and skip the self-indulgence.
They really set it up for an equally plausible ending where the transference was possible, but he sacrificed himself before it could be done (or was otherwise prevented from doing it), making his sacrifice all the more meaningful. They also left the distinct possibility that the sky people would just win. Only meta knowledge of typical American film-making ruled that out.
I will agree however, that, had they not made the transference possible, it would have been a more interesting movie.
My problem with the Na'Vi is that they don't have six limbs. Everything else on the planet has six limbs...
There is a long-running theme in scifi, especially pulp scifi, that basically boils down to "space elves." Humanoid "elves" from space end up on a planet, eventually merging with it in some mystical/biological harmonious way. It would make sense that the Na'Vi shared the same root ancestry with humanity (panspermia, parallel evolution, or some other thing to that effect?). Considering the whole genetic idea behind the avatars, and the implied compatibility thereof, I don't consider this a serious issue. At least, no more so than the Mars surface scene in Total Recall.
While I enjoyed Avatar as a visually impressive popcorn flick, the veneer of liberal pro-environment, anti-corporate politics over it's simplistic and frankly rather racist portrayal of the stereotypical aboriginal peoples bothered me. It's that standard genre of popular culture that tries to appear intelligent and socially conscious without actually examining the heft of the tropes it's built out of. You bother to look an inch beyond the surface, and it's just a race of Rosseau-esque noble savages who are so incompetent that an admittedly below-average white man can (over the course of 3 months, mind you) come to dominate their culture, easily achieving their highest honors and leading them to a victory that otherwise would have been impossible. It leaves a bad taste in your mouth. I won't go so far to say Avatar is a bad movie. It's a lazy one though, and in a subject where lazy writing quickly becomes offensive. The philosopher Salvoj Zizek says it much better than I ever could here. He also brings up some interesting points about Titanic and the nature of sex scenes in general.
the veneer of liberal pro-environment, anti-corporate politics over it's simplistic and frankly rather racist portrayal of the stereotypical aboriginal peoples bothered me... it's just a race of Rosseau-esque noble savages
Except that, in this case, the "savages" were correct. It is as though the Native Americans' spiritualism had been reality, and the Ghost Dance had been successful in driving the white people back into the ocean.
Y'know, I've actually always wondered about the storytelling utility of sex scenes. I mean, obviously, throwing sex into a movie appeals to audiences in a somewhat primal and "ooh, edgy" sort of way, but rarely do I encounter a sex scene that actually does something for a movie. The only one that springs to mind is in The House of Sand and Fog, where the sex scene serves to punctuate the incredible desperation of the situation. Can anyone think of "useful" sex scenes in a movie?
Comments
Sherlock Holmes!
- Liked RDJ, but he came off a little too Tony-Stark-But-British in a few parts. Everyone else was pretty good. Rachel McAdams was my favourite, I think.
- First quarter of the movie after the opening credits moved kind of slow. I found myself bored for a while, and then things started to pick up.
- The colours and atmosphere were really well-realized.
- Loved the music! Good god, why haven't I bought that soundtrack yet?
- Overall: Pretty decent. Didn't love it, but it was definitely enjoyable.
Shutter Island!
- From a technical standpoint, bang-on. This IS filmmaking. The cinematography, the sets, the lighting, the costumes, the music (again, LOVED the music, especially its usage in the opening), the acting, the direction - all very solid.
- From a story standpoint, good, but a little disappointing at the end. From the first trailer, I suspected it would just be that. I tried to tell myself it wouldn't just be that. It was just that.
- Okay, to be fair, the last important line of the movie saved it from being an entirely standard that. Good job that was in there.
- Those WWII flashbacks were truly disturbing. Good lord.
- Overall: Really great if you're not familiar with these kinds of stories, just pretty good if you are.
Tron!
- Yes, yes, I hadn't seen the original Tron up until now. Before the Tron Legacy teaser came out, I barely know what it was other than it sounded like ReBoot and involved lightbikes or something.
- I'll say up front: it sure wasn't as good as ReBoot, that's for sure! Not for lack of trying, though. I can see all the work that went into this thing, as described on the Greatest Movie Ever Podcast.
- The acting was probably some of the cheesiest and most wooden that I've seen in aaaaaaaaaaaaaages. Oh my god. Except Jeff Bridges. Jeff Bridges is, and (it seems) always has been, the man.
- Found the flow of the story difficult to follow sometimes, even though when you boil it down, it's incredibly simple. Pacing never quite felt right.
- At the very least, really did enjoy the visual look of the film. It's true that nothing else really looks like this.
- Overall: I can see why this was so important and groundbreaking, but it will probably never be one of my personal favourites. Still want to see what Tron Legacy will be like, though.
Defendor!
- THIS
- OH MY
- HOLY
- SHIT, MAN
- OH WOW
- WHY AREN'T YOU WATCHING THIS NOW?
- OH RIGHT, THE AMERICANS DON'T GET IT ROLLED OUT BEYOND, LIKE, LOS ANGELES YET.
- GO TO L.A.! SEE THIS! NOW!
- AT THE VERY LEAST, ANTICIPATE SEEING IT WHEN IT EITHER ROLLS OUT OR GOES TO DVD IN APRIL!
- *ahem*
- For starters, Woody Harrelson, much like Jeff Bridges, is the man. I love that he can go from bad-ass dude Tallahassee in Zombieland to the sweet, mentally challenged (but still bad-ass when he puts his mind to it) Arthur in this, and not seem even kind of like the same person in either. That's the mark of a great actor. His portrayal here largely carries the movie. So many facets of this man's personality and ticks, and they all come off so naturally on-screen. He can make you laugh. He can make you cry. He can make you feel like cheering.
- And it's not just him! There are some equally great supporting players around him the whole way through. The characters played by Kat Dennings, Sandra Oh, and Michael Kelly all feel like very real people. Elias Koteas's character, Dooney, is maybe a bit more of a stereotypical "corrupt undercover cop," but he's still very enjoyable to watch, especially whenever he's confronted by Arthur/Defendor.
- The script and direction are really good as well. The movie goes from a pretty clear superhero parody at the beginning (complete with backlit smoke, running on rooftops, and overblown music) and pretty organically turns into a very sincere, often dark character study and musing on the nature of vigilantism/heroism. There are a couple of gaffs here and there where the switches in tone don't work quite so well, but on the whole, playing with the different tones works well.
- The whole climax, while definitely the least believable bit in the movie, is totally satisfying. Kind of Gurren-Lagann-ish in a way (not the end of Gurren spefically; just that feeling of going up against impossible odds and kicking ass).
- Overall: The first truly awesome movie I've seen for 2010. As far as a deconstruction of superheroes go, I'd go so far as to say I liked it more than The Dark Knight (at least the Batman and Two-Face parts, anyway; maybe not the Joker parts). Seriously, see it if you ever get the chance.
A Swedish vampire film, for those who don't know.
Le gasp! A vampire movie done well?
It played an interesting balance between a charming look at a young boy growing up in Sweden, and grotesque violence.
It's not a fast movie by any means, though it does have its tense moments
A beautiful movie though, every shot was was just gorgeous in color, in staging. Really visually satisfying.
Was a little bit disappointed that the ending wasn't darker, but they did leave that interpretation open, so I appreciated it.
Overall: solid, enjoyable movie, well worth seeing for a different take on the old monster.
Also
I
apologize for
the spacing.
It also did a number of the things I enjoy in scifi anime. They spent a lot of time on the mechanical and technical design usedthroughout the movie. There were tons of little details (the monitors, airlocks, vehicles, weapons, etc...) used effectively to make a believable scifi world. And, with the exception of the stereotypical "incompetent suit bad guy," the characters were interesting and, for what the movie was, well-executed.
Many of the complaints I hear about this movie boil down to "it didn't have a tragic ending, which means it wasn't deep." I don't buy it. Furthermore, the resolution was properly foreshadowed without being overly transparent. The majority of the rest of the complaints seem to be the exact same ones made about Titanic back in the day, which I can only write off as haters hating.
I don't necessarily have a problem with transparent movies, but I do have problems with extended transparent plots. Basically, it would have been better if it was a shorter film.
I do agree about the attention to detail and so forth. Lots of cool sci-fi guns and stuff blowing up. I did enjoy that. As I said, everything would have been fine if it didn't drag on so damn much. There were multiple points where I found myself thinking, "OK, I get it. Move on."
One last note, the Na'vi looked way too cartoony when compared to the rest of Pandora. They could have used a better design.
A great point that has been made is that the very scene after the two main character's exotic love scene is one of destruction and violence. Surprise, surprise, just how Cameron executed it in Titanic. Additionally, I'm going to have to take exception to the idea that the characters are interesting. There is not a single individual in this film which I could not predict their out-come at the end of the flim from the moment they were introduced on screen. The evil, culturally ignorant commander, the greedy businessman who is willing to sacrifice a bit of his humanity for profit, and the compassionate scientist who only wants to learn the "mysterious and ancient culture" plus her quirky assistant. One dimensional and boring if you ask me. That's because they were designed that way to be perfect jack-off material. They look very cat-like to make them appeal to our innate compassion for cutesy things. You wouldn't give a fuck about the Na' Vi if they looked like this:
Again, cookie-cutter films have their place. Nobody criticizes Iron Man because it's a derivative work. We know that going in. If you're going to be derivative, just give us what we want and skip the self-indulgence.
I will agree however, that, had they not made the transference possible, it would have been a more interesting movie. There is a long-running theme in scifi, especially pulp scifi, that basically boils down to "space elves." Humanoid "elves" from space end up on a planet, eventually merging with it in some mystical/biological harmonious way. It would make sense that the Na'Vi shared the same root ancestry with humanity (panspermia, parallel evolution, or some other thing to that effect?). Considering the whole genetic idea behind the avatars, and the implied compatibility thereof, I don't consider this a serious issue. At least, no more so than the Mars surface scene in Total Recall.
It leaves a bad taste in your mouth. I won't go so far to say Avatar is a bad movie. It's a lazy one though, and in a subject where lazy writing quickly becomes offensive.
The philosopher Salvoj Zizek says it much better than I ever could here.
He also brings up some interesting points about Titanic and the nature of sex scenes in general.
Daryl Surat explains why I do not like this movie on his latest podcast.
Otherwise, the protagonist couldn't achieve her goal, which is the entire plot of the film.