74 – Youth in Revolt (2009)

Youth in Revolt (2009)

3 stars – * * *

Director – Miquel Arteta

Cast – Michael Cera, Portia Doubleday, Jean Smart, Steve Buscemi, Ray Liotta, Zach Galifianakis, Justin Long, Adhir Kalyan

——————–

Michael Cera continues his run of awkward teen roles with Youth in Revolt, a comedy based on the 1993 book of the same name by C. D. Payne. The book, by all accounts, has quite a cult following. The movie may get a cult following of its own I think, as it certainly has its own unique brand of charm. Michael Cera is his usual self, but the rest of the cast performs well.

The movie has a great opening and a good last half, but the middle is uneven and stunted. There are moments where it seemed that they were trying hard to earn its R rating (although here in Canada it is just a PG 14.). There would be some hard swearing that would really throw us out of the relatively light hearted tone of the movie. It threw me a couple times, as if it seemed out of place.

This charming tone is helped by a few animated segments, done in a “claymation”/Robot Chicken style. These sequences are mainly when the main character is traveling, etc. The little figures don’t look exactly look like Cera and Co., but they have are absolutely irresistible.

With all the comedic talent in this movie (Michael Cera, Zach Galifianakis, Steve Buscemi, etc.), the standout performance to me was by an unknown, Adhir Kalyan. His mastery of accents and subdues comic timing is impeccable. He switches with ease from what I think is his native British accent to an Indian accent with lightning speed and wonderful clarity. I personally hope to see this guy get more roles.

OVERALL

While Youth in Revolt has some great stars and a story rich in potential, it just doesn’t quite come together as well as it should. It is draggy, and seemingly without focus, even though the story is quite simple. With some things that should have been played for laughs and aren’t, it is very hit and miss.

——————–

TRAILER

“Youth in Revolt” on other websites:

IMDB —– Rotten Tomatoes —– Wikipedia

—————————————-

73 – Fracture (2007)

Fracture (2007)

3.5 stars – * * *

Director - Gregory Hoblit

Cast – Ryan Gosling, Anthony Hopkins, David Strathairn, Rosamund Pike,  Billy Burke, Embeth Davidtz, Cliff Curtis

——————–

Fracture is a mostly successful thriller from the director of Hart’s War and Primal Fear. It features the Great Anthony Hopkins as Ted Crawford, a man who killed his unfaithful wife and Ryan Gosling as Willy Beachum, the ambitious and young (is there any other type?) attorney who is assigned to prosecute him.  Crawford regularly taunts Beachum, sending him things in the mail, trying to spook him; while Beachum digs to find anything with which to convict him. The intellectual battle between the two of them is the main focus of the movie.

Fracture starts off quite well. After some excellently shot driving sequences and a brief scene showcasing Crawford’s job as an aeronautical engineer, we are actually shown Crawford’s wife cheating and then getting shot. The fact that we know that Crawford is guilty, and that we have seen him carry out the murder in a quite chilling and cold-blooded manner, builds up his character and makes us root (and fear for) even more for the protagonist, Willy Beachum.

The film unfortunately starts to lose ground about half an hour in. The plot is bogged down with a couple extraneous side-plots, and towards the end of the movie when it starts navel-gazing a bit too much. We have been told that Willy will lose credibility and most likely even a new job if he loses the case, yet we are constantly given scenes where he worries about it, then a scene where he is told that he’s worrying too much, then a scene where he tells someone he is worrying too much, etc. We got the point the first time, and while a little repetition of a theme can sometimes be good, here it is just like a hammer hitting us over the head. Repeatedly. It drags the pace down considerably as well. Ryan Gosling is a good actor, and he manages to muddle through these scenes, but he doesn’t quite save them.

Anthony Hopkins really shines in his role also, and it is a pity that there isn’t more of him in the movie. He can do heartless yet compelling murderer like very few others. (He was Hannibal Lector, after all.) A strong villain really makes a good thriller (we’ve seen this most prominently in superhero movies) but here we want to see more of him. What comparatively little screen time he gets though, is thoroughly enjoyable.

OVERALL

Fracture is a 3 star movie which is made a 3.5 by its stars. Anthony Hopkins is unbeatable, and Ryan Gosling more than adequately gives us a leading man to choose from. The plot is fairly interesting, but we are left with a hunch that the details of the crime and the solving of said crimes wouldn’t quite hold up to closer inspection. However the ride is, for the most part, enjoyable.

——————–

TRAILER

“Fracture” on other websites:

IMDB —– Rotten Tomatoes —– Wikipedia

————————————–

UPCOMING MOVIES – January 2010 Part II

Upcoming Movies – January 2010 Part II

I haven’t done an upcoming movies list in a while so there are quite a few here, and it is a two-parter (continuing from Upcoming Movies – January 2010 Part I). Just to clarify, this is not a list of My Eagerly Anticipated movies, just an observation of what we see coming to us in the future. (Though some of them of course I will look forward to seeing.) In no particular order, here is the Upcoming Movies - January 2010 Part II post.

——————–-

—– Edge of Darkness —–

Martin Campbell (Casino Royale, Goldeneye) re-directs a story he has previously done for BBC TV as a mini series. This marks Mel Gibson’s first acting gig after the under-rated Signs. The trailer looks a bit generic though…

Release Date: January 29, 2010 —– TRAILER —–

-

-

—– I Love You Phillip Morris —–

Jim Carrey, talented as he is, hasn’t has a great movie in a while. Team him up with Ewan McGregor and I am definitely interested. While it doesn’t look like the movie will get a huge distribution, I’m sure I’ll see it on DVD somewhere. I hope…

Release Date: March 26, 2010 —– TRAILER —–

-

-

—– The Ghost Writer —–

Roman Polanski’s latest. He can be a hit and miss director, (what the heck was Ninth Gate?) but this looks kinda good.

Release Date: Sometime in mid 2010 —– TRAILER —–

-

-

—– The Company Men —–

The trailer for this is very vague, but from what I understand it is about men losing their jobs and dealing with the aftermath. I personally am not an Affleck hater, and would like him to get a good movie, so I’m optimistic.

Release Date: 2010 —- TRAILER —–

-

-

—– Chloe —–

I for one think this looks intense. Liam Neesom is usually good, Juliane Moore is well-respected (I’ve never been a huge fan, but I haven’t seen many of her movie), and Amanda Seyfred is good as well. Here’s hoping…

Release Date: March 19, 2010 —– TRAILER —–

-

-

—– From Paris With Love —–

The director of Taken, Pierre Morel, returns with From Paris With Love. This movie adds to John Travolta’s resume of bad ass action roles. Jonathan Rhys Meyers (from The Tudors) gets a lead role here, which is interesting.

Release Date: February 5, 2010 —– TRAILER —–

-

-

—– Repo Men —–

I must admit I’m a big fan of Jude Law, so this movie caught my attention. I’m also rather big on sci-fi, so there’s a double whammy. The trailer, however, looks like a Minority Report rip-off. A man in a system gets in trouble with the system and must fight his way to innocence. We’ve seen it before. And yet I’m still optimistic, I don’t know why.

Release Date: April 2, 2010 —– TRAILER —–

-

-

– Percy Jackson and the Olympians: The Lightning Thief –

This movie looks like the lamest, by the numbers, rip-off movie I have ever seen. It is directed by Chris Columbus after all. Sean Bean? Pierce Brosnan? Uma Thurman? What the heck are you doing in this? Yes I guess I’m not that optimistic about this one.

Release Date: February 12, 2010 —– TRAILER —–

-

-

——————–

What do you think? Interested in any of these? Any other upcoming movies you really want to see? Leave a comment!

—————————————-

UPCOMING MOVIES – January 2010 Part I

Upcoming Movies – January 2010 Part I

I haven’t done an upcoming movies list in a while so there are quite a few here, and it’ll be a two-parter. Just to clarify, this is not a list of My Eagerly Anticipated movies, just an observation of what we see coming to us in the future. (Though some of them of course I will look forward to seeing.) In no particular order, here is the Upcoming Movies - January 2010 Part I post.

——————–

—– Sex and the City 2 —–

I think that poster says it all doesn’t it? Whoever wants to see 4 wealthy, beautiful women prance around New York (and apparently Morocco as well) and deal with life altering questions like which purse with which sandals, please raise your hands. Ah, half the women in North America. I guess I’m not the target demographic…

Release Date: May 28, 2010 —– TRAILER —–

-

-

—– Robin Hood —–

Russel Crowe and Ridley Scott team up (for the fifth time) for a decidedly revisionist take on the Robin Hood legend. No green tights here. The trailer is awful in my opinion, but I think because it was badly edited. Lets hope the movie is better than what we see here…

Release Date: May 14, 2010 —– TRAILER —–

-

-

—– The Karate Kid —–

Another remake heads our way, this time of an ’80’s “classic”. Will Smith’s boy, Jaden Smith, stars, alongside Jackie Chan. Apparently the plot will be a bit different, as the filmmakers are making their own story for this one.

Release Date: June 11, 2010 —–TRAILER —–

-

-

—– Iron Man 2 —–

One of the best received movies of the last few years has its sequel, due in May. Don Cheadle replaces Terrence Howard, which should be interesting, and we are introduced to more villains. Movies with many villains tend to be harder to get right, and this one apparently has 3 major ones. We’ll see…

Release Date: May 7, 2010 —– TRAILER —–

-

-

—– Knight and Day —–

Tom Cruise and Cameron Diaz star in this new action comedy. Now I’ve always more or less liked Tom Cruise (couches and religion nonetheless), but this doesn’t really look all that extraordinary. Cameron Diaz seems to me to be a death knell to any movie. Maybe we’ll be surprised, but I doubt it.

Release Date: July 2, 2010 —– TRAILER —–

-

-

—– Furry Vengence —–

Oh good Lord, spare us.

Release Date: April 2, 2010 —– TRAILER —–

-

-

—– Crazy on the Outside —–

Tim Allen’s latest has many stars that we all like and would love to see do well in a good movie. This doesn’t really look like it unfortunately. I for one would love for Kelsey Grammar to get a nice juicy part in a really good movie. He’s proven he can be awesome in a bad movie already (15 Minutes).

Release Date: January 8, 2010 —– TRAILER —–

-

-

—– Grown Ups —–

Continuing in the vein of lame looking comedies with big casts…

Release Date: June 25, 2010 —– TRAILER —–

-

-

—– Greenberg —–

Ben Stiller may not be the first name that pops into your head when you think of indie dramedy, but here it looks like he’s trying to do the “Adam Sandler in Punch Drunk Love” thing. Personally I’m intrigued. From Night at the Museum to a movie that delves into question of self-identity, purpose in life, and aging? Yes please!

Release Date: March 26, 2010 —– TRAILER —–

-

-

—– Terribly Happy —–

There’s not too much to say about this one, except that it looks interesting. If only this would get distribution like some of the crap that does get circulated.

Release Date: October 2, 2008 (in Czech Republic, not sure when we’ll ever see it) —– TRAILER —–

-

-

—– She’s Out Of My League —–

Do we need more of these? Seriously? Do we need any of these?

Release Date: March 12, 2010 —– TRAILER —–

-

-

-

—– The Bounty Hunter —–

Come on! We’ve seen Butler try the rom-com thing with The Ugly Truth. Yeah, that turned out well…

Release Date: March 19, 2010 —– TRAILER —–

-

-

-

—– Green Zone —–

It may seem like Bourne 4 (what with the same actor, director etc.), but this one is peaking my interest mildly. When a director sticks with a particular star it can be interesting (Scorcese and DeNiro/De Caprio; Christopher Nolan and Bale/Caine etc.)

Release Date: March 12, 2010 —– TRAILER —–

-

-

—– Kick-Ass —–

Kick-Ass is a spoof/loving tribute of superhero movies. It has a lot of geek cred apparently, and is based on a comic book series. It could be half decent I think. You?

Release Date: April 16, 2010 —–TRAILER —–

-

-

-

—————————————-

What do you think? Interested in any of these? Any other upcoming movies you really want to see? Leave a comment!

—————————————-

72 – The Hurt Locker (2009)

The Hurt Locker (2009)

2.5 stars – * * 1/2

Director - Kathryn Bigelow

Cast - Jeremy Renner, Anthony Mackie, David Morse, Brian Geraghty, Guy Pearce, Ralph Fiennes

——————–

The Hurt Locker follows a hotshot American bomb defuser, William James, as he makes his way through a tour of duty in Iraq. James is played by Jeremy Renner, previously appearing in 28 Weeks Later.

First of all I would like to mention that I am fully aware of the massive critical success of this movie. 97% on Rotten Tomatoes is nothing to laugh at. Maybe I do need to watch the movie again. However, I don’t see what else I can do to try to like this movie. I was extremely excited about seeing it, went in with an open mind, etc. Nothing doing, though. After watching it I realized I did not like the movie at all. Where to start…

The major problem with the movie (in my view) is an extremely episodic and uneven story. I felt throughout that I was watching a series of TV episodes, unconnected except for the main characters and a vaguely similar tone.The most infuriating thing is that some of the individual sequences are quite good, riveting even. But there is very little story here, and what there is is heavy-handed and full of cliché. We’ve all seen the fully dressed guy go into the shower to show his inner turmoil; the rough military guys play-fighting and it gets out of control, thus showing how fragile war makes us, etc etc.

It isn’t like the movie is lacking in ideas either. There are probably half a dozen different plot points touched on in the movie that could have gone somewhere, but instead they stop dead, usually before they’ve had a chance to develop. The young boy whom James thinks dies, the private contractors they meet in the desert, etc. All of these could have been molded into a story, but were not.

I have also never seen a worse depiction of the Iraqi people. Every single one (with one exception) is shown as a jabbering, stupid, illogical savage who must be grabbed, pushed, or cordoned off if there is to be any order in the country. Is Bigelow trying to just show us how the US Army may see these people? If so, that didn’t come across, nor was there any addressing of the huge issues involved in the American involvement in the area. In fact the point of the movie (from what I gather, that war sucks and is addicting) gets buried by little ideological side roads, each one tricking the viewer into thinking that it will be an issue to be explored.

As I said, the movie seems like episodes of a show shoved together. Any story issues are “solved” by just bringing another celebrity in for a cameo, killing them off, and then giving us a meticulously shot explosion. With no story arc, no character development, and with no clear point of where we are going, how can we as an audience expect to care? While I do plan on watching it again to try and see why everyone else seems to like it, I didn’t care about anyone or anything in the movie on the first viewing.

OVERALL

The Hurt Locker consists of some amazing sequences, some extremely contrived ones, and no story to speak of to tie it all together. The performances are good (especially an amazing small cameo by David Morse). But HOW CAN WE CARE if there is no story? Search me.

——————–

TRAILER

“The Hurt Locker” on other websites:

IMDB —– Rotten Tomatoes —– Wikipedia

——————–

71 – Enemy at the Gates (2001)

Enemy at the Gates (2001)

4 stars – * * * *

Director - Jean-Jacques Annaud

Cast – Jude Law, Joseph Fiennes, Rache Weisz, Ed Harris, Bob Hoskins, Ron Perlman, Gabriel Thomson

——————–

Enemy at the Gates follows famous Russian sniper Vasily Zaytsev, played by Jude Law. It focuses on a prolonged duel with German sniper Koenig (Ed Harris), but also touches on his dealings with a political officer Danilov (played by Joseph Fiennes) and a love interest, Tania (played by Rachel Weisz).

There have been many war movies made throughout the years, and they tend to fit in one of a couple categories. On the one hand, you have movie about war. Examples would be A Bridge Too Far and Tora, Tora, Tora. These films tend to focus on the larger war effort, and generally have ensemble casts. The other type uses war as a backdrop, while we focus on a handful of characters in the foreground; examples of this would be Pearl Harbor and Saving Private Ryan. Enemy at the Gates is of the latter, yet still branches out enough to show that the main character isn’t all there is to the story. The main criticism of the movie is that the love-triangle story between Zaytsev, Danilov, Tania feels tacked on. Personally I feel that would be a problem if the movie was of the former group that I mentioned, but as the point of this movie is to focus on a couple of people, it worked.

We are shown both sides of the conflict (at least where Vasilky’s duel is concerned), which is interesting and builds up the tension even more. But the best thing about the movie is an attention to detail that should make most other movies blush. Annaud ignores the traditional use of “setup shots”. Often we see a main character (or whoever is the focus of a scene) moving around (before the close up) in the “long shots”, shots used usually to set up a scenes environment before the lead triumphantly makes his way on-screen. It is a seemingly insignificant detail, but it really adds up to create a feeling of a bigger world.

The heart of the movie, however, is the tension involved in a snipers job. Ed Harris and Jude Law have a great ability to say much with little facial expression. Their eyes just burn through their sniper scopes, making the whole war seem to revolve around their battle, ignoring their political ideologies.  Jude Law’s Zaytsev is Communist, but he seems to not know or care what regime he lives under. He’s an average Joe who was drafted into the army, and he just wants to survive the war. Ed Harris’ Koenig is also not interested in political ideology, but just wants to do the job he was brought on to do. He is a professional, and Zaytsev must bring his all to beat him. You want to see tense, you have it here.

OVERALL

While there are a couple of predictable moments, Enemy at the Gates more than delivers. Its combination of sincerity, an insane level of detail, and great acting makes this a firmly enjoyable movie. And… am I the only one who thinks Jude Law is very under-rated?

—————————————-

TRAILER

“Enemy at the Gates” on other websites:

IMDB —– Rotten Tomatoes —– Wikipedia

—————————————-

70 – Sherlock Holmes (2009)

Sherlock Holmes (2009)

3.5 stars – * * * 1/2

Director - Guy Ritchie

Cast – Robert Downey Jr., Jude Law, Rachel McAdams, Mark Strong, Kelly Reilly

——————–

Guy Ritchie’s Sherlock Holmes is the first Holmes movie to hit the big screen in 21 years, the other latest being the comedy Without a Clue, starring Michael Caine and Ben Kingsley. This version chucks out all previous ones, and goes for a flat out action/comedy tone. The comedy is subdued though, so it certainly does not overwhelm the movie, keeping the action/adventure/danger elements front and center. This is essentially the Victorian Lethal Weapon.

While Conan Doyle most certainly did not write his stories as such, I won’t dwell on the change in tone too much. The movie will offend most Holmes purists, but the Holmes “knowledgeable but indifferent” (in which group I place myself) will be amused by numerous references to the original stories. Most surprisingly though, is how true to the books the portrayal of Watson is. I think Jude Law would have fit in with Jeremy Brett as a great Watson of the traditional mold.

But, on to the movie itself. Its cinematography is dark and gloomy, giving us a London Dickens would have been proud of. Fog lurks on the muddy Thames and dirt coats the streets. However the pace of the movie and the storytelling is so hyper-active that we are never lulled into a feeling of gloom or despair. There is always another witty quip or fast, frantic action scene heading down the pipes. Sherlock is funny and (I think) knows he is, but in a dry, ironic way that would make Woody Allen jealous.

Where the movie may lose points is in the story-telling itself. The plot is a bit muddled, and asks us to believe in witchcraft and magic (which actually had a resurgence of interest in the Victorian Era) throughout the movie only to yank the rug out from under us  extremely later on. Don’t get me wrong, I actually prefer that magic in the end was not the answer, but to have built the whole movie up on it only to wipe it all out felt like cheating in a way. Ritchie and Co. milked all the grandiosity and fear out of black magic, only to discard it when the plot needed wrapping up.

OVERALL

Ritchie’s Sherlock Holmes gets through on its quick pace, quick wit, and Boy’s Own Adventure bravado. This is not the Holmes of old, but then again, if you can’t beat Jeremy Brett why try. This movie is Holmes for the masses, but despite that fact it manages to carve out a nice personality for itself. The only real problem that I can see is that the action is a bit frantic and the story gets a bit muddled. However, the solid-to-great performances really make this an above average adventure.

—————————————-

TRAILER

“Sherlock Holmes” on other websites:

IMDB —– Rotten Tomatoes —– Wikipedia

—————————————-

69 – Never Cry Wolf (1983)

Never Cry Wolf (1983)

4.5 stars – * * * * 1/2

Director - Carroll Ballard

Cast – Charles Martin Smith, Brian Dennehy, Zachary Ittimangnaq

——————–

Never Cry Wolf was released in 1983 to not much publicity, and certainly not to much of a box office return (though I understand it made a comfortable profit). Its star wasn’t a huge name, but had spent three years making the movie. It wasn’t an independent movie (produced by Disney, and was the first Disney film to show naked buttocks), but if released today would most certainly have been. I can’t see any major studio agreeing to fund this nowadays. It’s too simple an idea, and too un-commercial. It is also very, very good.

This movie is in a way very “high concept”, which means that it has a very basic idea at its core and then works from that. Speed is often used as an example of that. There’s a bomb on a bus and the bus can’t go over 50 kph, go! This is about a man sent to study wolves. That’s it. It promises very little up front except its concept, and delivers wonderfully. One can imagine a studio executive seeing the idea for this movie and deciding to spruce up the plot by adding large amounts of human conflict. That is not done here at all. We see the world the main character is uncovering as he uncovers it, and not before.

The main character (never named, but as the book is purportedly semi-autobiographical it is assumed he is Mowatt himself) is sent to the Canadian North to study wolves and determine if they are part of the cause for the declining numbers of the caribou . He is sent to an unknown area, with useless food (canned food, but no can opener), few tools and even less knowledge; his orders are to find a wolf, kill it, and examine its entrails, thus determining what the wolf feeds on. With more enthusiasm than common sense he sets out on his errand.

After a while he finds a pair of wolves and, finding himself unwilling to shoot one, sets to observing them. Gradually he gains enough of their trust that he can set up a camp a short distance away without the wolves interfering. We are shown this through a series of amusing, yet touching and enticing scenes that really immerse us in the feeling of the area. While this movie is certainly fairly heavy it doesn’t shy away from some wonderful comedic pieces, which both lighten up the tone and give a great sense of humanity to the whole thing.

Many people have taken issue with Farley Mowatt’s admitted tendency to (as he said) “…not let facts interfere with the truth.”  While Mowatt claims that the book (and thus the film) is autobiographical and is all true, many have pointed out several flaws. For example he was not alone on this exhibition, but was part of a party of three. He claims he was sent to provide justification for killing wolves, but in actuality was simply sent to examine the relationship between caribou and wolves.

Such criticisms may be true, and most people seem to hold them as such. However if the movie is good, then it is good, plain and simple, regardless of its technical accuracy. This argument is often used to support the study of The Birth of a Nation (1915), a movie which practically single-handedly invented the “language” of cinema yet is incredibly racist; and Triumph of the Will (1935), a Nazi-made documentary that is often called on of the most influential movies of its type. Never Cry Wolf makes assertions about the nature of wolves, and seems to seriously call into question man’s nature as a  carnivore. Even though the movie raises some derisive questions, the answers it gives to them should not detract from its value as an artistic statement.

OVERALL

Never Cry Wolf is emotional yet subtle, thoughtful yet strong, and is a genuinely human movie. It is slow-paced, but that adds to the emotional resonance of the movie. It’s ending does feel a tad like a “cop-out”, but it still raises interesting questions. The sequences involving wolves evoke surprisingly strong feelings of empathy, and must have been very difficult to shoot. Definitely recommended.

————————————–

Movie Clip (No Trailer Found)

“Never Cry Wolf” on other websites:

IMDB —– Rotten Tomatoes —– Wikipedia

————————————–

68 – Avatar (2009)

Avatar (2009)

3 stars – * * *

Director – James Cameron

Cast – Sam Worthington, Zoe Seldana, Sigourney Weaver, Stephen Lang, Giovanni Ribisi

———————

Avatar has finally burst upon us. It is arguably the most hyped movie ever, with James Cameron declaring that it will revolutionize the way we make movies. Possibly. The CGI is wonderful, and some of the things we see are absolutely unprecedented.

The story is about a man who, while inhabiting an alien body via some sort of pseudo-scientific telekinesis, falls in love with an alien (a “Na’vi”) who is native to the planet he has come there to destroy essentially by strip mining it. He changes his mind after seeing the beautiful planet and the native’s peaceful ways, and gradually finds himself becoming more and more like the Na’vi. His superiors naturally want him to keep his mind straight, and tell him not to “forget whose team you’re on.” Conflict (both internal and kaboom-style) obviously comes up.

It is such a pity that Cameron the director is so good, while Cameron the writer relies on cliché after cliché to tell a story. One gets the feeling that he thought of the feel of the movie, the environment, the cool sequences he could do etc., and then at the last moment thought “Oh crap, I need a story for this don’t I. Let’s see, Dances with Wolves was good, right? Let’s mix in that with a bit of Romeo and Juliet and we’re good to go.” The story in general had potential, but instead of focusing on the big themes (racial issues of forcing a population off their land because you want it; the whole idea of first contact with an alien race etc.) he focuses on the love story. Now this wouldn’t be so bad if the romance was treated with any degree of maturity and with a recognition of the problems involved. However the romance is played like all the run-down romances of the past. To put it simply, we’ve seen it SO MANY TIMES before. Line for line, plot point by plot point, this movie has hardly an original bone in its gloriously rendered CG body.

This is such a shame, as the world Cameron has created is for the most part wonderful. (I could have done with less “over-the-top beauty” though. For example when Cameron wants to show us the beauty of the place he doesn’t show us a natural looking world but fills it with incandescent purple-ness, as if bludgeoning us over the head “See, it’s PRETTY!” But that’s a fairly minor point.) The battle scenes toward the end of the movie are terrific, probably the best of its type. Some of the shots of all the military vehicles etc. will literally make your jaw drop.

Cameron has always been good at making stuff look good. He’s a very technical director, and unfortunately we see his story suffer from that. He looks at stories very technically. He looks at his blank piece of paper, and says “Forbidden romance, check. Evil corporation, check.” and ticks off all the ingredients he needs. He isn’t interested in telling a story. He needs a story as an excuse to put all his technical wizardry to work. Technical wizardry which is, granted, ground breaking.

One last thing; a major plot point involves a ceremony which the Na’vi believes is religious. The humans find that there is actually a scientific reason for what occurs during the ceremony. However, it is still played as religious to us, the viewer. The choral music sweeps up (James Horner composed the music by the way, up to his usual trick of ripping off everybody including himself as much as possible), the aliens start swaying, and the camera just worships it, while we keep rolling our eyes and wishing Cameron would just get on with it. If it had played as rational and scientific it might (MIGHT) have been less groan-worthy.

OVERALL

A ridiculously contrived and over-used romantic plot line combined with a total lack of subtlety almost ruin Avatar. The CG may be groundbreaking and the battle scenes worthy of fanboy-ish screams, but if we find ourselves groaning and rolling our eyes every other scene it can’t hold up. I recommend you see it if you want to see helicopters and trees blowing up. There’s a lot of that, and it is indeed awesome. But while the movie has a great “roof”, it has no “foundation”, and is as subtle as a brick to the head. To quote a friend “It’s an awesome movie, except for the story.” That pretty much says it all.

—————————————-

TRAILER

“Avatar” on other websites:

IMDB —– Rotten Tomatoes —– Wikipedia

—————————————-

67 – A Christmas Carol (1951)

A Christmas Carol (or Scrooge (US)) (1951)

4 stars – * * * *

Director – Brian Desmond Hurst

Cast – Alastair Sim, Mervin Johns, Michael Hordorn, Michael Dorn, Francis De Wolff, C. Knoarski, Glyn Dearman

——————–

Watching A Christmas Carol on Christmas Eve is one of those traditions that all families seem to have. The version they tend to watch is this one, starring Alastair Sim. He is often called “the definitive Scrooge”, and while I have not seen too many other Scrooge’s, I can see why people may think this. Personally I am still waiting to find “my” Scrooge so to speak, but until then Sims is a perfect substitute.

Alastair Sims portrays Scrooge as not particularly cruel, but as a man who is tired of life and who is concerned with keeping himself alive and well in a hostile world. His attitude (as directly expressed in one scene) is that the world is a hostile place, and to survive in it you must also be harsh and hostile. This is certainly not as we tend to view the Scrooge character in our popular culture today. We instead see him as a mean, grumpy creature who loves others misfortune. He is more three dimensional here.

However I do think that Scrooge is presented as a bit too nice. He changes almost right after he is shown his first vision. Also, the first ghost , The Ghost of Christmas Past, takes up almost half of the movie, while the others have progressively smaller roles.

The atmosphere of the movie is well done, but not extraordinary. It is presented in Black & White, so the grimness of London and Scrooge’s life attitude are represented well. The special effects are good for their time, mainly consisting of two of the ghosts being fairly transparent.

The DVD on which I watched this was not of the highest quality though, and I believe that is the only copy available. It is certainly the only one I’ve seen. It claims to be digitally remastered, and they even have a demonstration in the Special Features of before and after the remastering. However this is almost laughable, as the difference between the two is nearly non-existent.

OVERALL

A Christmas Carol is a fairly faithful, albeit traditional and badly aged, presentation of the original story. Sims makes a great Scrooge, and the supporting cast is suitable. At times it may go a bit over the top, but its all in earnest. If you get in the spirit it is quite a good movie.

——————–

TRAILER

“A Christmas Carol” on other websites:

IMDB —– Rotten Tomatoes —– Wikipedia

—————————————-