Movie Reviews!

[pieces o nine]

I recently saw Next  (I'm a Nicolas Cage fan)  and recommend it to anyone who likes adventure.





Edit: Darlica, split topic

[Sibling Zono (anon1mat0)]

I saw two movies this weekend which deserve a review.

500 days of Summer
Genre: romantic comedy (tragedy really)
In this movie a guy falls for a girl who takes him, to dump him after a while. Has been done to the death you say? Possibly, but the merit here is that instead of the typical rosy fallacy the movie tells a real story with all the pain it involves, mercilessly. In fact it was quite painful to watch, and I'm sure many viewers will recognize the situation right away, in some cases -like mine- from personal experience.

The whole thing looks like a train wreck in slow-mo, which is made bearable by the small jokes peppered all along, plus the fact of it's non linear delivery.

I have to say that the movie works in many levels and the acting is quite good, but go see it at your own peril. You have been warned.

District 9
Genre: scifi, action, drama
OK, this is perhaps the best movie of the year, possibly better than Watchmen (which is a very good movie IMO) and a must if you like sci-fi. The movie tells the story of an alien ship stranded on the skies of Johannesburg, South Africa filled with about a million or so disoriented aliens, and the guy in charge of relocating them from the slum where they live to a refugee/concentration camp outside Johannesburg. The movers behind the 'eviction' are more interested in the inner workings of their weapons than on letting them leave the planet (on which they have been for about 20 years).

Without giving more of the plot, I can say that the success of this movie is how believable the subcontext is, a number of layers that give that feeling of something real with some layers of gray below the obvious villain(s)-reluctant hero device that drives the movie. In the end a number of plot points -that may have been used before in different movies- mix in a credible way leaving a bittersweet taste (and a likely sequel).

The acting of the anti-hero is superb (enhanced by the fact that he isn't a known actor) and the CGI does a brilliant job conveying the emotions of the key aliens.

This one is really a must.

[Opsa]

I saw "Ponyo" last week with the Opsalette and her young friend. We are all fans of Miyazaki, who also directed "Spirited Away", and "My Neighbor Totoro", among other weirdly wonderful animated films.

It did not disappoint. It was just as beautiful and strange as the others. This guy really knows how to portray children as children, and not just little grownups. They are goofy and joyful and sometimes fearful.  They never do anything right the first time. Even pulling a backpack over one's head is achieved in several tries, and this is fascinating to me. Plus, he uses old people and treats them like people.

There are some underwater scenes that are just breathtaking. There is some magical stuff that's confusing and goes unexplained, but that's okay. It's from a child's viewpoint where not everything is obvious.

It's nice to go to the movies and just be carried away on someone's creative spree and into another world. I liked it.

[Aggie]

Fido.
[youtube=425,350]8Mo6C6up1Qo[/youtube]

Nice Canadian boy-and-his zombie film.  Filmed in my hometown with lots of scenes in the park I used to feed the duckies in as a lad. 

The trailer pretty much gives you a good feel for wht to expect.

[Darlica]

That's a zombie movie I would watch!

I hope it comes here at least on DVD!

District 9 and Ponyo are now on the to watch list too.

[Aggie]

It's excellent - probably one of the best comedy movies I've seen in a while.

I should note that this is already out on DVD as it's from 2006. 

[Opsa]

Oh, it looks like exactly my cup of tea! And with a Ramones soundtrack? Why haven't I ever heard of it?!

[Aggie]

Meh, low-budget Canadian film, so it probably got little promotion beyond the CBC.  Even I forgot about it (and it's filmed in my freakin' hometown!) until I saw it in my local (newly-discovered and awesome) indie video store last Saturday.

Get your hands on it! It's great!

And surprisingly less cheesy and less gratuitous gore than one would expect for a zomcom.

[Scriblerus the Philosophe]

District 9
Genre: scifi, action, drama
OK, this is perhaps the best movie of the year, possibly better than Watchmen (which is a very good movie IMO) and a must if you like sci-fi. The movie tells the story of an alien ship stranded on the skies of Johannesburg, South Africa filled with about a million or so disoriented aliens, and the guy in charge of relocating them from the slum where they live to a refugee/concentration camp outside Johannesburg. The movers behind the 'eviction' are more interested in the inner workings of their weapons than on letting them leave the planet (on which they have been for about 20 years).

Without giving more of the plot, I can say that the success of this movie is how believable the subcontext is, a number of layers that give that feeling of something real with some layers of gray below the obvious villain(s)-reluctant hero device that drives the movie. In the end a number of plot points -that may have been used before in different movies- mix in a credible way leaving a bittersweet taste (and a likely sequel).

The acting of the anti-hero is superb (enhanced by the fact that he isn't a known actor) and the CGI does a brilliant job conveying the emotions of the key aliens.

This one is really a must.

YES. SOOOOOOOOOOOOoooooooo awesome. I can't wait to get my hands on a DVD of it.

[Opsa]

I saw "Where the Wild Things Are" this past weekend and was very surprised at how much it really isn't a childrens' film. There were some very dark and disturbing moments and things so scary that some little kids in the audience rather freaked out at times, and I don't blame them.

However, I found it to be quite intriguing and beautiful in its exploration of the facets of one boy's psyche. The monsters were impressively crafted and their expressions were exquisite. I don't know how the heck they made them fly into the air and land crashing down into the woods and onto each other so recklessly. The scenery was fiercely lovely. The kid that played Max had a wonderfully serious face.

I was not completely enchanted with the lead-in story (which was not in the original book), but that part wasn't too long and helped put a background on the reasons for young Max's voyage.

The Wild Things seemed to represent raw emotional aspects of Max's mind in combination with his experience, and even though they could be unpredictable and threatening sometimes, they could each also be very deep and thoughtful and endearing. I think maybe Max needed to face and embrace them before he felt he could go back home.

I'm still chewing on the meaning of this movie, but that's a good thing.

[pieces o nine]

I saw Where Wild Things Are  over the weekend as well. I knew they'd have to pad the story line to make a feature-length film, and I think the inserted back-story was Ok. I liked how Max was surprised to realize that some of his thoughtless pranks hurt (feelings as well as physical) the monsters just as he had felt hurt by the other's actions back home.

I was really shocked that the theater filled quickly with small children --- WHO PUT THEIR BUMS IN THEIR SEATS, KEPT THEM THERE, AND WHO KEPT QUIET!!! Yay kiddes, an thee groanhups wot razed ye!




~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
One exception: the extended family which plonked in 'my' row  [always sit back row, center, if possible]  and began loud, non-stop, stream-of-consciousness monologues. About 10 minutes into the movie, I stood up and strolled to the end of the aisle, surprising myself as much as them with how much I LOOMED over the cowering little wretches. I locked eyes with granny and stated, calmly but clearly:

"There is a soundtrack. It is not you. If you cannot keep it down, I will get an usher. Is that clear?"

She snarled at me like a cornered ferret, "yes."   But the whole clan shut the heck up. Victorious, I returned to my seat, savoring the theatre-wide silence from all the other little patrons, and my own ability to tame one particular set of semi-feral children.

But. after they returned home, I hope the wild rumpus started... 

[Opsa]

Haw! Good for you. Saint Chatty would be proud.

I prefer to sit in the center back, as well, as I am a real spaz about people making a lot of noise or kicking my chair. Several little tinies broke into crying fits, but they were far away in front of me, so it didn't bug me.

I was surprised by the violence, like when the goat showed his wounds and when the bird lost his arm. That may have been too much for the littles. But I think those instances illustrated the intensity of a child's feelings.

[pieces o nine]

Thanks; I thought of her as well.   


And I agree about the film's violence, although small kids often have vivid and bizarre (violent) imagery in both sleeping and waking dreams...

I thought the stick replacing the lost wing/arm was a perfect[?] touch. It both minimized and emphasized the injury. Using something associated with innocent fun (on a snowman, for example) was really ... weird ... treated so off-handed-ly as a functional prosthesis.

Ultimately, I think it all works for kids old enough to be working through their own 'wild' impulses as part of the civilizing process of childhood.

[Sibling Zono (anon1mat0)]

I'll try to catch it (Pieces, so good to see you!), I loved Being John Malkovich and Adaptation although I was a bit wary after listening to the critic of NPR (now, he hated Watchmen, which I considered incredibly good).

No more details!

[Lindorm]

Goya's ghosts, a film directed by Milos Forman and produced by Saul Zaentz.

Oh dear, where do I begin?
This film is an attempt at portraying the later life and times of Goya, through some extraordinary events involving people close to him -or perhaps, people he would want to be close to. Goya is played by Stellan Skarsgård of all people, who mostly wanders around and looks distracted for most of the time. Javier Bardem plays the big, bad inquisitor who wanders around in a black cape and looks broodingly around him. Ines (played by Natalie Portman) is the beautiful daughter of a rich merchant, who is suspected of jewry and heresy by the inquistion and thrown intop prison, where she is interrogated by Javier Bardem in such a manner that she eventually becomes pregnant. Meanwhile, Stellan Skarsgård runs around and is a generally artistic genious who anxiously tries to be nice to everyone and stay uninvolved, and paints scandalous portraits.

Then, enter the french revolution, and cut-scene to 15 years later. Natalie Portman now plays her own daughter, who has become a prostitute and of course gets picked up by Javier Bardem's character -who, by the way, has changed his allegiances somewhat. Then, Napoleon invades, and everything is thrown into turmoil. Oh, and Goya walks around and is an artistic genious who tries to be nice to everyone and stay uninvolved, but now he has gone deaf, too.

Diverse alarums and excursions ensue, after which we end up with suitably Forman-ish emotional turmoil and philosophical musings over fate and life.

Yawn.

Sure, Javier Bardem can and does look and act really terrifying, and we do get to see a bit of naked Natalie Portman in chains, and there are some mass scenes that are very skillfully done, and the photography is in parts really beautiful, but where is the story? The Ariadne thread? The motivations of the characters, especially Goya? To me, it all felt a bit too much like "Hey, let's make a beautiful costume drama, with a bit of morality and existential philosophy to throw in, and since this is a serious movie, we can show some tits and ass, too, so let's get a young actress in there somewhere. Oh, and to show that we are really high-brow intellectual, lets throw in a bunch of references to Luis Bunuel movies, too!"

As I said, yawn. When you consider how much passion and emotion there is in the art of Goya, it is rather ironic that they have managed to make such a passion-less and lukewarm film.

Oh, and it does get quite a bit tiresome to always have Spain in the early modern age portrayed as a land of primitive bigotry and scheming, opressive cardinals.


Still, a naked Natalie Portman in chains is a naked Natalie Portman in chains, so I suppose there are those that might find some redeeming value in the movie. Me, I'll probably use the disc as a drinks coaster.

[Sibling Zono (anon1mat0)]

Oh, and it does get quite a bit tiresome to always have Spain in the early modern age portrayed as a land of primitive bigotry and scheming, oppressive cardinals.

Because the French and the English weren't? 

Bigotry and scheming was universal those days -and to be fair an honest- nowadays much more than we would like to admit. As for the cardinals, now we have megachurch evangelical pastors and candidates to the presidency*.

I have that movie ready for netflix streaming, pity it doesn't work... 

*talk about scary

[Lindorm]

Oh, and it does get quite a bit tiresome to always have Spain in the early modern age portrayed as a land of primitive bigotry and scheming, oppressive cardinals.

Because the French and the English weren't? 

Bigotry and scheming was universal those days -and to be fair an honest- nowadays much more than we would like to admit. As for the cardinals, now we have megachurch evangelical pastors and candidates to the presidency*.

I have that movie ready for netflix streaming, pity it doesn't work... 

*talk about scary

I became a full-time train driver when a re-organisation of the Swedish system for higher education reulted in a drastic cut of funding to the humanities. I was by then working on a doctoral thesis on identity-building, ideology and Swedish foreign policymaking during the early modern period, so I am thoroughly familiar with the bigotry and scheming that could and did take place in those days.

However, I am rather tired of some old clichés that get trotted out from time to time, and while early modern Spain certainly saw it's share of religious fanatism and intolerance, there was more to Spain than that.* In the film, most of the church is either old men in dark robes plotting in dark chambers, dirty monks incited with religious fervor or fat, ugly and grotesque prison wardens drooling at the tought of getting to torture another poor wretch. A film with such high-brow aspirations should not have characterisations that make Major Bigglesworth seem like something out of the ouvre of James Joyce. To portray all early modern spaniards as either plotting inquisitors or desperately poor and uneducated peasants is a bit on the same level as having all Swedish women portrayed as buxom blondes named Inga or Helga.

As a side note, it is interesting to see that elements of the Leyenda Negra still lives on in a way. One of the world's most effective smear jobs?

(Even further aside, it is interesting to compare and contrast the spanish- and english- language editions of the article on the subject on Wikipedia. Apart from the name, they have completely different approaches and conclusions.)


* And if you want to see some bigoted religious fanatics that could make the spanish inquisition look like the Unitarians, there are a number of Swedish bishops from the era that I can recommend.


(edited to correct the link)

[beagle]

A film with such high-brow aspirations should not have characterisations that make Major Bigglesworth seem like something out of the ouvre of James Joyce.

Did Joyce write Biggles? Always thought the blighter was a bit too trusting of foreigners to be a real RFC type.

Pity about the Goya film; I'd turn up for a decent one.  Meanwhile, a retrospective review of the film "So funny it was banned in Norway".

[Sibling Zono (anon1mat0)]

... is a bit on the same level as having all Swedish women portrayed as buxom blondes named Inga or Helga.

What?! You just burst my bubble!

As a side note, it is interesting to see that elements of the Leyenda Negra still lives on in a way. One of the world's most effective smear jobs?

(Even further aside, it is interesting to compare and contrast the spanish- and english- language editions of the article on the subject on Wikipedia. Apart from the name, they have completely different approaches and conclusions.)

Growing up in what was at some point an Spaniard colony (New Granada to be precise) my history lessons had an interesting emphasis on a number of institutions (like the inquisition, for instance) or the general (mis)treatment of the natives which I now understand as nationalistic [pseudo*]propaganda. IOW we do have a reason for the emphasis, it comes as surprising that such slanted-by-omission vision was common in continental Europe and North America.

Ironically enough, in my current understanding of the conquest, the Spaniards seem to be almost benevolent when compared to the genocidal tendencies of the Anglo-Saxons and -to a lesser exempt- the French. Precisely the supposed starter of the Black Legend Fray Bartolomé de las Casas' push to consider the natives 'human' did indeed save the natives that didn't die of small pox in the Iberian colonies**.

In general terms people in those days were quite nasty regardless of origin, and -as the Spanish version wiki suggests- the legend was simply a reaction to the incredible wealth and economic success of the Spaniard enterprise in the Americas.

*mind you, the accusations are real and the conquest of the Americas was as vicious as it could have been, but then again emphasis was given to what happened in the Iberian colonies, not the English, Portuguese, French or Dutch ones.

**plus the fact that the Spaniards came without women, which is the reason for the majority of mestizos (mixed) among Latin American populations as opposed to the AngloSaxon/Caucasian north.

[Swatopluk]

There are reports of the reactions of Napoleon's soldiers as they found the torture chambers of the inquisition. Must have been a real stomach turner.
Interstingly Spain under the Inquisition remained free of the witch crazes that swept the rest of Europe. The Inquisitors investigated the first rumors of witches and found them to be without merit (since noone turned up in the places where the  sabbath was said to take place despite the suspects claiming to have been there at the time). From then on they ignored further rumors and/or punished those spreading them.
Compare that to Britain where they had a witch trial or two during WW2* (using the old law that was still on the books)
---
As for sinister Swedish clerics, I know a few movies that include those (e.g. by C.Th.Dreyer).**
I am also aware that there are Scandinavian females with names different from Inga and Helga, e.g. Gitte, Wencke or Siw . I also hear (unconfirmed) rumors that some Scandinavians are not always drunk when abroad  .

*against faudulent mediums that were suspected of giving away military secrets
**unlike most Germans I am more accustomed to "dark" Scandinavian movies than to soft prawn. Will someone try to fuse the three strands (soft prawn, b/w depressants and Lindgren) anytime in the future to create the quintessential cliche movie?

[Kiyoodle the Gambrinous]

Here are a few reviews of movies I've seen lately and I've decided to share with you. I'll start with the worse and maybe write about the others later:

The Twilight Saga - New Moon

First of all, I want to state that I have never read the books. So I am not a fan and my review is more of the one of a man who went out with his girlfriend to see a movie that she might like.

With that said, I can state that probably the only people who will appreciate this movie will be those, who are fans of Stephenie Meyers books. For all the rest it's a waste of time and money to go see this in the theatres. I have seen the first part, and while I didn't particularly like it, it was at least partially well done, it was a professional piece of movie. "New Moon" lacks this professionality. From the beginning it appears that Chris Weitz shoots this movie like he really doesn't care about shooting a quality piece, one would even say he hates the whole thing. He tortures the viewers with heavy, slow pace, great details of tragic expressions of tragically bad actors in long discussion about the human soul. When there's finally some action, he puts it in slow motion. I guess he doesn't want the people to get a heart attack from the shock that there is something a little faste happening on the screen. The result is laughter from the audience. But I guess that wasn't really the intention of the director that people laugh at the moment where the main character's werewolf friend takes of his shirt to brush the blood from her forehead.

Anyway, I'm going too fast here. I should probably offer the people a little of the story:
Bella is a teenage girl, who is in love with a vampire. This guy leaves her, for unexplicable reasons (for her unexplicabe, anyone else with an IQ over 30 understands that he wants to protect her from himself, doooooh). The heart-broken girl then starts doing stupid things like jumping from the cliff into frozen water, because when she does something risky, she sees the image of her one and only love. She also starts being very close to a friend of hers, who happens to be a vampire. So she basically is the type of the woman who always choses the wrong man. Now she is torn between the love of both of them, as they logically hate each other, vampires and werewolves are enemies, but they both love the same girl.

Anyway, that is basically it, what the story goes. But even with a story like that one could have created an at least average movie, if good was out of the question.

Robert Pattison is rather a good actor, but he is not given the space to show that. He basically plays a good-looking pale coat-rack for good clothes. The werewolves run around half-naked all the time wrestling and doing "man" stuff all the time. But once they turn into wolves they look like the wolf from Little Red Riding Hood hit by a truck. And the main actress is just an example of bad acting.

I would give it 20%. 10% for the fact that I could see the surprise on my girlfriend's face, when the movie started. I actually told her we were going to see Law Abiding Citizen, but bought tickets for this crap instead and she didn't know it till then. And another 10% for the fact that people in the movie are reading Romeo and Juliette and that might be a good thing, right?

[Kiyoodle the Gambrinous]

******Attention: Spoilers ahead******


Avatar

I saw Avatar and I must say one important thing right at the beginning:

WOW!

This was basically my reaction and it sums up how I feel about the movie. It's mind-blowing! James Cameron has once again showed that he is a revolutionary fim-maker and his touch for details is just amazing. I am happy that he waited 10 years for the technology to improve and didn't shoot it right after Titanic, as he originally intended. One this is important though, if you are planning to see the movie - see it in 3D. I think that in order to get the maximum of the movie, you have to see it in 3D.

Anyway, the story of the movie isn't so revolutionary, but all the rest is. The story is a little bit of Pocahontas wrapped into a very interesting form. The most important thing about the story is how carefully all the layers around are created. The nature is just amazingly created, every single detail is elaborated into perfection. The planet Pandora is like out of a dream - beautiful, coulourful, alive, simply perfect. Once you are sucked into this world via the 3D glasses, you can't stop enjoying the environment. James Cameron has managed a world that is so familiar, but so unlike anything else that you have seen before. A world where fantasy goes alive. It is important to note that the charme of Cameron's movie is not in his 3D-ness itself, it is in how the director works with this technology. I dare say that he is the first director who manages to use the 3D technology for the benefit of the movie, not like many other directors so far. We don't have blood spraying at us or bullets shot at us (although he could have done that, because we get plenty of action). Cameron takes the 3D effect like a cookie, a bonus for the viewers, who wants to see a real world in front of them.

The interesting about the 3D in this movie is that it does not go in the direction towards the outside, but works with the depths. The result is thus not a reality that stands out of the screen but a world that that sucks you in. That is actually what allows this movie to be so revolutionary - I don't think there is a movie that has been able to create such an illusion of space.

Now to the story. I have said that it's not revolutionary, but that's talking only about the main storyline - boy comes with bad guys, is infiltrated into the good guys, falls in love with the good girl, becomes a good guy, the bad guys lose, the good guys win and yipee. But Cameron has managed to create a multilayer world that makes the story so amazing. Starting with the three-meter high inhabitants of Pandora, over to elaborated creatures of the planet's flora and fauna, up to the amazing futuristic machines and breath-taking exteriors. Cameron is a great tour guide through the world of fantasy. When taking a walk through the woods of Pandora, you are all the time amazed by the playful details (like little tree seeds floating through the air). And the best thing is, you still have good humour in the movie, which comes with the whole story, it's not a kind of humour that is put into the movie just for laugh-sake.

The humour comes with the ex-marine, who has been put on the wheelchair due to the war and has no problem with standing up to the authority. Once he is put into his Avatar - an experiment that has managed to mix the genes of the inhabitants of Pandora, the Na'vi, with those of humans and the owners of these human genes can operate this Avatars, just like they would be Na'vi's themselves - he goes to places he's not supposed to and has no problem in teasing the "authorities". He is then infiltrated into the Na'vi tribe in order to make them leave their native tree (which is a very high tree in which they live), because it's found on a rich prospect of very high-value mineral that can be sold on earth for "20 million a kilo". He does that and starts becoming fond of the lifestyle the Na'vis have, falls in love, becomes the leader of the "revolution" that goes agains the evil of the "civilization" and save the people that have been devastated by the ruthless military force of the Earthlings.

At this point, one must highlight another aspect of the movie. It's main colour is blue, and it was used for the overall marketing of the movie. But Cameron could freely use the colour green as well. His movie is so emphasizing the green note that for some people it might be a little intrusive. He very much emphasises the fact that the Na'vi are living in total symbioses with the nature and he does that throughout the movie. It tells us that it's bad to use the nature's richess and not give anything back, to destroy the natural inhabitat etc. On the other hand, I liked this. And if it manages to make an impact on people to live a little nature-friendly, it's good. But one must say that next to Avatar, Al Gore's "Inconvenient Truth" is no match at all.

With all these things done, I conclude the following: The movie is amazing. It's one of the few movies that I have watched with my mouth opend from beginning till the end. And my mouth hurt, as it's almost three hours long. But it was well wort it and I will go see it at least one more time, while it's in the theatres, because it will probably lose a lot of it's magic once on DVD (unless you have a very good TV, bluray, perfect surround system, tolerant neighbours and the possibility to watch in 3D).

I think I can give it 80%, maybe the movie is not Oscar-material as for the acting and the storyline, but it's one of the best movies this year.

[Swatopluk]

Some nasty critics called in Dances with Smurfs (in space)
They were nonetheless impressed.

I hope I'll get the chance to see it in 3D and original language but currently the cinemas are simply overrun. I'll try in the first week of January.

[Sibling Zono (anon1mat0)]

Darn! Kiyo beat me to it!
---
Avatar
_{Scifi, action}

A crippled ex-marine is hired as a security escort for a science team in an off world mining operation at odds with a native culture. The chances of you not having heard of the movie would mean that the ~$150M spent in global advertising were wasted (I doubt it), which makes you wonder if those $300M spent doing the movie were a circumstantial element or if the execs went bananas. Well I can tell you that they're not, just the opening weekend totaled $232M, but that's just money, right?

Given that it took almost 20 years for Cameron to make this movie (his last true sci-fi was The Abyss) you expect him to fulfill his promise and for a 2:30 hr movie where the explosions don't start until the last hour this is a very well paced affair, when the visuals are so stunning in the calm parts that you'll forgive him for touching the flowers. The plot while imperfect works wonderfully -so much he seems to have a plan for two more sequels-, and while common themes and certain predictability are involved the outcome works so well you'll forgive him those.

The movie was filmed in 3D and it is certainly preferable to watch it as such (IMAX even better) as it's visuals are certainly half of it.

In short, it wasn't a mistake to burn movie on advertising, the movie is well worth the expense.

[Kiyoodle the Gambrinous]

Some nasty critics called in Dances with Smurfs (in space)
They were nonetheless impressed.

I heard it it got the nickname Smurf porn, because the Na'vi are running around half naked (and they are very attractive as well...).

Darn! Kiyo beat me to it!

Sorry mate. I guess I just had some time on my hands...


PS: I'm going to see it at least one more time...

[Swatopluk]

I have seen Avatar yesterday (resulting in dizzyness, visual disorientation and quite a headache but long action movies, esp. in 3D do that to me in general).
It is indeed a mindblowing experience and for good reasons (which is rare). I admire Cameron's restraint to not for a single moment going 'in your face', i.e. in front of the screen and at your eyes as every other 3D movie I have seen seems to do*. Even in the case where shots are fired in the direction of the viewer, there are no bullets zipping by, just muzzle flash. The 3D is used for depth only and marvelously so. Only on very few occasions I noted a slight polarization effect interfering with the 'reality'. I was also highly impressed by the use of 3D 'in film', i.e. the holographic colour models used in the labs etc.
I think Cameron took some inspiration from his trips in to the abyss (no pun or allusion) intended. Some of the jungle plants and especially the jellyfish like seeds are clearly derived from sea creatures. But they fit in perfectly.
Now for the bad parts : Cameron is a thieving magpie of epic proportions. There is almost nothing both in plot or visual elements I could not name a(t least one) precedent for, including creature design, although I cannot prove of course that in each case there is a direct connection. The floating mountains (and parts of the jungle) remind me of Dragon Hunters, the bonding with the flying lizards as the decisive part of 'becoming one of us' equals Dinotopia (and I swear I have seen the head design for the flyers somewhere before too but can't say where**). The basic plot (unscrupulous corporation trying to mine a planet with 'pesky' cat like*** natives worshipping a nature godess through certain plants) looks like taken directly form the computer RPG Albion (minus the Celts) etc. On the other hand I do NOT think that Return of the Jedi had a significant influence (though LOTR might given that Weta did the effects). The giant hometree has so many precedents that it would be impossible to pinpoint the exact source and comes so natural that one cannot blame anyone.
</thrashing></bashing>

Cast quite good. I especially love to see Sigourney Weaver back in that kind or role.

On the whole a totally worthwhile cinematic experience. I give it a straight 8/10. Cameron may have nicked all elements from somehwere but the synthesis is close to perfect.
Will there be a sequel? (Logically the humans would return with nukes⁴* or at least nerve gas to take revenge and get the resources at whatever cost but that would not make much of a movie). I actually hope not for the magic's sake but the success will almost guarantee it.

*case in point: the trailers for animated 3D movies right before. One shot at the eye after the other.
**not Aliens, although there is a bit of similarity.
***The Iskai in that game are not blue buth otherwise the similarity is stunning
⁴* and use a famous quote form Aliens

[pieces o nine]

I went to Mirror, Mirror yesterday -- without arm-grabbing friend.  

ZOMG! A gold-worshipping megalomaniac, mis-using 'religion' to callously grind down the impoverished masses! It must be a subversive commie-socialist-godless-Democrat ploy to re-elect Obama and shove health care down our throats!  

I thought it was a good remake, with entertaining re-imagining of basic plot points and costuming to die for -- literally, if you were one of the peasants paying for them!  I really liked his interpretation of the classic fairytale meme of a pool of water / mirror / reflective surface used as a portal. On the other hand, as much as I liked Julia Roberts' performance, I had to sadly admit that once you're cast as the stepmother, the Hollywood Leading Lady torch has been passed to a new generation, no?

There is a particular percussion rhythm that I love (don't know the proper label, or if it even has a term) which occasionally shows up unexpectedly in Western music. Richard Souther used it -- strikingly and effectively -- as an aural scaffold for Hildegard von BIngen's mind-bending harmonics on one CD track. I kept thinking I was hearing bits of it throughout the film, which was confirmed at the end credits  [NON SPOILER]  with an exuberant Bollywood number getting in to full swing just as "Directed by Tarsem Singh" flashed on the screen.

[edit]  I hadn't known he was involved. No wonder it was so visually opulent! [/edit]

So yeah, go if you like subversive fantasy.  

[Swatopluk]

SnowWhite seems to be a theme of the year. Next in line will be SnowWhite and the Huntsman and Asylum does its usual direct-to-DVD trash version too. Sigourney Weaver is nowhere to be seen though 

http://static.tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pub/images/TaleOfTerror_5407.jpg

[Roland Deschain]

I'm so glad to see Avatar getting the love it so deserves. I was blown away by its visuals too, and although the story wasn't anything new, essentially being a really expensive Ferngully, it was something to behold, for sure. I have it on Bluray, and can say it looks amazing there, but unfortunately have no working surround sound system to fully appreciate the sound, and my HDTV is not 3D compatible (that's what you get for letting a technology become established, then buying months before 3DTVs start manufacture). Still, my Panasonic Viera does the job nicely.

Mirror, Mirror and Snow White and the Huntsman both look pretty good from their trailers. Now all that's left is to see if the trailers lied to me. What was wrong with the Sigourney Weaver version of Snow White? I remember it entertaining me when it came out.

[Swatopluk]

It was not meant as any diss on the old film, which I liked very well.
Just that it seems that few remember that it has already been done and that the new evil stepmothers have to measure up to the lady that has aliens for breakfast. Unlike many other actresses Weaver has no problems with 'ugly', if it serves the purpose.

[Roland Deschain]

It was not meant as any diss on the old film, which I liked very well.
Just that it seems that few remember that it has already been done and that the new evil stepmothers have to measure up to the lady that has aliens for breakfast. Unlike many other actresses Weaver has no problems with 'ugly', if it serves the purpose.

Sigourney Weaver is a goddess, for sure, and even being half as good as her is still a good performance. I don't mind old tales being revisited in dark ways. In fact, I positively love it. It's when the film seems to promise so much from its trailers, and you hold out much hope for it, but then you see it and find that it's actually a watered-down piece of trash made to appeal to the teenie boppers, this is what annoys me.

[Opsa]

Went to see "20 feet From Stardom" yesterday. LOVED IT!

This is a documentary about backup singers, whose incredible voices we have heard in musical recordings since the 1960's. It is about their careers, their personalities, their experiences. Some have longed to be stars, but got caught in the backups. Some are satisfied just to have had the privilege to sing for a living.

I saw this in a new Anjelika movie house with stadium seating and an excellent sound system. It was just mind bending to hear such great human pipes harmonizing, cooing, belting out and just doodling around.

I am a major Motwon fan, but also recognized the singers who have backed up the Rolling Stones (the Gimmee Shelter story is wonderful!), David Bowie, David Byrne, Sting and more. There are funny parts, and parts that made me feel so bad for some of these people who worked so hard for so little recognition, and were even ripped off outright by the record companies.

But oh! That music they made. Makes a person like me dance in my chair.

[pieces o nine]

So a bunch of us went to 2-for-1 night at the Elks (the "cheap" one downtown where movies play after they disappear from first run theatres) to see Star Trek: Into the Darkness: Da-da-DAH!-da-da-da-DAH!



I really rather liked it. I've read pros and cons regarding Abrams' AU treatment of the franchise, but I have to give him credit for creating "action" movies that are fun to watch. It's my understanding that he was never a trekkie growing up, but he's developing a series worth watching that will stand with the original series in a way that some of the later TV spin-offs will not. I like the casting, I like the character development, and I liked all the little homages in this one to both the classic, original series, and some of the subsequent movies.

[Opsa]

That's good to know! Maybe it will withstand the test of time.

[Sibling Zono (anon1mat0)]

His first one got a good cast, good action, and an utterly unbelievable plot with more holes than Swiss cheese.

His second fixes the problems of the first, and works beautifully, even if it isn't your average Star Trek (although as ST movies go, this may be one of the best).

[pieces o nine]

A group of us went to see The Lone Ranger tonight. I don't know exactly what I was expecting, but it surprised me, and we all quite liked it. Perhaps the critics hated it so much because many of JD's stunts were reminiscent of the POTC movies?

I think the horse should be nominated for an Oscar.

[Opsa]

That's good to know! I was sort of looking forward to that movie, but didn't see it because of the pans. Maybe I'll check it out!

[pieces o nine]

* not spoilers *

An element that I liked in this version is one that some critics hated -- the story is being told to a young boy in a Lone Ranger mask, visiting a museum [with an intentionally cringe-inducing exhibit placard], by an elderly Tonto. There were a couple bits that were delightfully anachronistic with this device [spoiler example: popcorn box for trade]

The story develops leisurely, with occasional phrases of the Overture during flashbacks or flash forwards of Movie!Action!  When they unleash the full Overture, there is a kind of Western framing of every James Bond car chase + Summer!Blockbuster! action sequence + classic Lone Ranger or Zorro cinematic stunt ever, with stuff going on all over the screen.

Save some popcorn to excitedly throw on the people in front of you. 

I had mixed feelings about casting a white actor as Tonto; I still do. But I thought his back story and character development were poignant and "historically" plausible, and JD delivered a sensitive portrayal. I thought the Ranger back story was interesting, as as his character development as a very modern, very educated, very honorable, jerk. I thought the 'jerk' moments, although jarring, were accurate to the attitudes of the time. No matter how advanced a person's thinking is in some areas, there are always other attitudes that are shocking when viewed from a later perspective. I don't know if that was intentional, and his 'jerk' moments irritated some critics as much as his 'ethical' moments.

This is why I generally ignore critics.   
If you (or anyone else) sees it, I'll be interested in your reactions.

[Opsa]

I saw two movies during the winter holidays.

Saving Mr. Banks
Very interesting look at the woman who wrote Mary Poppins and her struggles with Walt Disney to try to retain control of her story. Emma Thompson is absolutely fascinating as the rather prickly P. L. Travers- her facial twitches alone are amazing feats of physical control. The flashbacks to her childhood in Australia are absolutely gorgeous and heartbreaking, but where I started to cry (and believe me, if there is any crying to be done at movies, I'm your candidate) was when Walt Disney, played by the ever reliable Tom Hanks, makes a final plea with her to work with him. Like Travers, I have a disdain for the Disneyfication of classic stories, and in a way I was hoping she'd win. In the end (spoiler alert?) the movie gets made, but only with a lot of give and take between Travers and Disney. I think this movie is about compromise- something I have trouble achieving- between high ideals and business sense. I admire both Travers and Disney now for being able to find a common ground and am dying to see the old "Mary Poppins" movie again with new insight. (The two movies would be excellent played back to back as a double feature.)

Desolation of Smaug
Hey- I've seen all the others in the Tolkien series, so I had to see this. Well played, as the others were. When I read these in the fifth grade, I read about the battles without really picturing them. Seeing them in living color is a bit much, but I think they took care not to be too brutal. I can forgive the addition of the elf woman. Even though my gender-pandering radar went off, she is a decent character and helps keep some heart in the picture, especially when the spirits of the lead players are so low at this point. (P.L.Travers would never have allowed her, had it been her story, though!) Bilbo has been weakened, presumably by the pull of the ring, but the dragon is glorious, as he should be. The abrupt endings of each part of the film trilogy are somewhat jarring, but I will fly to the last one to see how the last part is handled. It is fun to relive the moments of suspense from the book, and I do appreciate that the filmmakers have for the most part stayed earnest and have avoided getting too cute or too gross.

[Sibling Zono (anon1mat0)]

P.L.Travers would never have allowed her, had it been her story, though!

There is a reason why movies from JRRT material have been made way after his death, and IIRC his son was a vocal opponent as well.

[Swatopluk]

I watched Hobbit II yesterday too.
Entertaining (not a waste of money) but there is a lot I am not really happy with. Not just because of deviations from the book but because a lot of logical flaws got introduced that were not in the book in the first place. E.g. why does Bilbo take the ring off or does not use it on several occasions (esp. when confronting Smaug)? At this time he has no means to know that its use poses a danger to his longterm mental health.
The Mirkwood sequence makes it look like they encountered the spiders within a few hours of entry. The huge dimensions of the forest are thus lost. The film does not convey the message that they have been walking for weeks and are out of food and close to starvation.
Laketown is full of guards and spies but no one notices a whole band of orcs and wargs entering by the main gate and crashing a lot of stuff?
One of the barrels gets totally perforated by fighting but still floats (and is not seen alter on).
The whole behaviour of the dwarves towards the dragon is completely stupid. Running around with drawn swords while trying not to get spotted?
The dragon is extremly well done but the whole action scenes wth him and the dwarves are defying any belief. As does Gandalf's entry into Dol Guldur btw. From the books we know that he sneaked in there and got the map and key from Thrain before the plot of the Hobbit started and assumed that the evil was  'just' a ringwraith. I assume the third film will show the White Council cleaning up the place temporarily. Big G entering there alone with drawn sword and shouting magic spells is imo completely out of character. As is personally fighting a duel with Sauron.

As usual the art direction is superb as are some of the actors but for me there is too much unlikely 'video-gamey' action added. No objection to the Tauriel character from my side. There is indeed not a single female in the book (except for Bilbo's mother getting mentioned a few times) and addfing her actually adds something interesting.
I assume JRR Tolkien would have loved the art but heavily disliked the action (even more so than with the LotR films)