Movie Review: "Avatar"

Avatar

Directed by: James Cameron

Starring: Sam Worthington, Sigourney Weaver, Stephen Lang

Rated: PG-13 for intense epic battle sequences and warfare, sensuality, language and some smoking.

James Cameron is known for making spectacle-driven films, but Avatar may have been his greatest undertaking. Twelve years since his latest film, and nearly three hundred million dollars later, Avatar reaches theaters. Even without the Imax experience, the effects are outstanding. However, there is really only one way to experience the film, and that is in Imax 3d which, thanks to its success, may stem a future of big-name releases for Imax. However, when you look deeper at Cameron’s film, it’s just a big name blockbuster. And, while you shouldn’t expect Cameron to stoop to the level of Michael Bay or Zach Snyder, you also can’t expect him to rise to the level of Sam Mendes or Peter Weir, either. What you can expect from Avatar is some of the strongest New Age philosophy on film to date. Unlike The Road, where technology and science leads to cataclysmic destruction, Avatar presents us with the opposite side of a godless science: nature as deity. Like Dances with Wolves and The Last Samurai (both of which mirror Avatar’s plot), the film rejects the death and destruction of technology and brutal capitalism for the peace and tranquility of Mother Nature. Unlike most films (and society, in general) Avatar even mixes science in with the spiritual realm, making the “deity” of Avatar even more prevalent and credible. Despite Cameron’s vocal insults at those who have bashed the film for this issue, it is nonetheless true. It is also true that the film has the best visual effects to date, and is a lot of fun to watch, especially in 3D.

Movie Review: "The Road"

The Road

Directed by: John Hillcoat

Starring: Viggo Mortensen, Kodi Smit-McPhee, Robert Duvall, Guy Pearce, Charlize Theron

Rated: R for some violence, disturbing images and language

Cormac McCarthy’s popular novel, The Road, depicts a post-apocalyptic earth where a father and son struggle to survive. His style and form play into his tale, giving no chapters to divide the story or names for his characters. The movie adaptation definitely follows McCarthy’s path; the plot has an unusual structure, the characters are never named, and the reason for the catastrophe never mentioned. However, it seems that reviewers are only dwelling on the faithfulness to McCarthy’s violence and brutality. This is incredibly unfortunate, since the story depicts far more than the grotesque nihilism of its setting. While McCarthy’s world is certainly one of despair, death, inhumanity and void of beauty, it only makes McCarthy’s characters more interesting, and the beauty of their humanity more vibrant. And despite the setting’s nihilistic outlook, and even the father’s existential drive, there is a clear understanding of right and wrong, good and evil that is somewhat supernatural. Despite, at times, even the father’s attempt to ignore it, the boy is always the anchor of considering, not what will help you survive, but what is truly right. Although cautioned, it's a road worth traveling.

Movie Review: "Inglourious Basterds"

Inglourious Basterds

Directed by: Quentin Tarantino

Starring: Brad Pitt, Christoph Waltz, Diane Kruger, Melanie Laurent

Rated: R for strong graphic violence, language, and brief sexuality

Quentin Tarantino’s new film Inglourious Basterds is marketed as a blood-soaked action film set during World War II. Throw that perception away; Basterds’ violence, although graphic, is a rarity, especially when compared to other World War II films. Tarantino is too genius to stoop the level of a period version of Ninja Assassin, even if the marketing may lead you to think that’s what the film is. Basterds, on the other hand, is his typical brilliant style, blending elements from virtually every genre to make something for everyone, especially film nerds. Technically speaking, it’s a masterpiece, giving us long, dramatic, almost theater-like scenes, which he even calls “chapters.” There is also no central character, giving the film and more-so literary feel. This is normally a weakness, but Tarantino knows the language of filmmaking too well to make Basterds anything but cinematic. He gets splendid performances from Melanie Laurent and Christoph Waltz, and even the normally drab Diane Kruger becomes charismatic and wonderful. Because of its unusual structure, each character in Basterds has near equal screen-time, meaning each performance is vital to the story. Again, Tarantino is aware of this, so each performance is, equally, spot on.

But at its core, Tarantino’s film rests on a surreal, more emotional take of World War II. Sick of watching historical movies were Nazis slaughter helpless Jews, Tarantino turns the table, giving Jews a chance to torture them right back. The film doesn’t glorify violence, like some claim. Instead, it glorifies revenge. It’s as if Tarantino wants every tear he cried during Schindler’s List to translate into Nazi blood in his movie. It’s a satisfying experience for Tarantino, but not as much for me. Even if it is retaliation, inhumanity is still inhumanity. The line that separates the Basterds from the Nazis is thinner then even Tarantino realizes. And they’re the heroes of his story?

Movie Review: "Is Anybody There?"

Is Anybody There?

Directed by: John Crowley

Starring: Michael Caine, Bill Milner

Rated: PG-13 for language, including sexual references, and disturbing images.

With the potential of being heartfelt and warm, Is Anybody There? is nothing but cold and disconnected. The magic of the imagery and story is wasted because the filmmakers can't decide what of movie they're making, which is noticeable from the first line to the last scene. One would think that a story about a boy befriending an elderly man living in his family's home would be an easy choice for a heartfelt drama, but the filmmakers didn't get the memo; it's not a family movie, let alone a kids movie. Despite it's derived beauty, the film feels disconnected from its audience, leaving you unconcerned about what's happening. Even Michael Caine's splendid performance can't salvage the feelings the story tries to conjour up. Despite it's attempt of redemption at the end, Is Anybody There? is a mere ghost of the film it wants to be; it initially looks like the real thing, but you eventually see through it. One has to wonder, when the theater lights came back one, if anybody was still there.

Archive Analysis: "Bourne Ultimatum" and "La Vie En Rose"

Zach's Favorite Films: #22

The Bourne Ultimatum

Directed by: Paul Greengrass

Starring: Matt Damon, Joan Allen, David Strathairn, Julia Stiles

Rated: PG-13 for violence and intense sequences of action

I don’t think a sequel has ever thrown you chronologically into the prequel in order to re-translate a previous scene’s meaning. Then again, it IS a Bourne film. The high-octane Jason Bourne franchise reaches a fantastic climax in The Bourne Ultimatum, where director Paul Greengrass once again has us following (literally) the antics of the on-the-run agent Bourne (Matt Damon), who is still trying to uncover his own shady past while avoiding the agents planned to terminate him. There is nothing in this movie that isn’t fun. There is nothing in this movie that isn’t brilliant.

La Vie En Rose

Directed by: Oliever Dahan

Starring: Marion Cotillard

Rated: PG-13 for substance abuse, sexual content, brief nudity, language, and thematic elements

Biopics hang delicately on the character and the performance of it's subject. La Vie En Rose, the biopic of french singer Edith Piaf strikes that chord perfectly. Director Oliever Dahan makes all the right calls, especially choosing Marion Cotillard to play the title role of Ms. Piaf. While its easy to say that in hindsight of her winning the Oscar for the role, it's pretty obvious as to why the Academy chose her: Cotillard gives as iconic of a performance as one can find. The role was almost a multi-character one, hitting the various stages of Piaf's life, all which are distinctly different yet still somehow interconnected. Cotillard handles it with ease and delicacy, balancing it truly well. It wasn't only one of the best performances of 2007, it was one of the best performances I've ever seen.

Movie Review: "The Blind Side"

The Blind Side

Directed by: John Lee Hancock

Starring: Sandra Bullock, Tim McGraw, Quinton Aaron

Rated: PG-13 for one scene involving brief violence, drug and sexual references.

Some say that love is blind, meaning that your feelings go beyond your perception. A good assessment, especially when compared to John Lee Hancock’s new heartwarming drama The Blind Side. The film, which is based on a true story, stars Sandra Bullock and Tim McGraw as parents of a wealthy southern family whose lives are changed when ask a homeless African-American teenager from the ghetto to stay in their home. Bullock, who has received some critical praise for the film, balances her compassionate nature and southern-belle strength extremely well, and Hancock (who has been absent since his 2004 remake of The Alamo flopped) tries to hit every emotional chord that exists in the script. While the film has a certain amount of tenderness that hits the soul, it still comes across as slightly lost and out of place. It’s as if, by attempting to blend in with other emotionally-driven films, The Blind Side exposes its own weaknesses. Bullock’s performance, while good, won’t hold up when compared to that of Meryl Streep’s Julia Child or Carrie Mulligan's Jenny Mellor. While the film has its heartwarming moments, it feels too much like packaged scenes (similar to that of The Rookie) than a plot, causing it never to achieve the emotional response of the story’s potential. And, especially when compared to the other winter releases, the film has too many technical flaws and with no real sense of style. But, recognizing these issues, I still loved the movie. It was exactly what I imagined it would be, warts and all. However, as exemplified by the characters in the film (and in real life), can love not be blind?

Archive Analysis: "Million Dollar Baby" and "The Proposition"

Sorry about the absence: travel and computer problems have kept me away.

Zach's Favorite Movie: #23

Million Dollar Baby
Directed by: Clint Eastwood
Starring: Hilary Swank, Clint Eastwood, Morgan Freeman
Rated: PG-13 for violence, some disturbing images, thematic material and language.

The cinematic brilliance of the movie was missed by so many who claimed the movie was about Euthanasia. While the film definitely deals with some difficult situations, the strong existential beliefs held by the characters are far more daring then their conclusions, and yet were never mentioned by the critics. At the least, Eastwood and Haggis have thought through their beliefs (unlike the more-so dangerous Cinderella Man or The Rookie) and they made a solid, emotional, character driven masterpiece along the way. I may not agree with the characters, but I definitely feel for them.

The Proposition
Directed by: John Hillcoat
Starring: Guy Pearce, Ray Winstone, Danny Huston, John Hurt
Rated: R for Strong Grisly Violence and for Language

A subtle, poetic outback-western that will make your stomach turn and heart race. The Proposition is as subtly beautiful as it is disgusting. Fueled by the icy glare of Guy Pearce (as well as an Oscar-worthy performance from John Hurt), Hillcoat seems to find his drama in the characters, and let them build the plot. Cinematographer Benoît Delhomme captures the rugged and the beauty with each shot, while editor Jon Gregory throws us into the scenes without the intros and exits of conventional storytelling, keeping us always interacting with the material. While The Proposition is too grisly to be considered a masterpiece, its too beautiful to be hated. Like it’s nihilistic message, it tries to find beauty in the present to wash away the sins of the past and future.

Movie Review: "The Box"

The Box

directed by: Richard Kelly

starring: Cameron Diaz, James Marsden, Frank Langella

Rated: Rated PG-13 for thematic elements, some violence and disturbing images.

The writer and director of Donnie Darko, Richard Kelly, is a gifted filmmaker who brings original concepts, characters, and alternate realities to life while relying on a more classical, Hitchcock-like styles of storytelling. When watching his latest film, The Box, his talent really shines through: an incredible concept, filled with possibilities and moral dilemmas, supernatural imagery, and subtlety that keeps you on the edge of your seat. Unfortunately, his subtlety is also his greatest weakness, which is also apparent in The Box. With more relaxed editing and more definition to what is happening on screen, The Box would be one of the best sleeper-hits of the year. Instead, we’re left with a vague impressions and ideas of what may (or may not) have actually happened in the story. It’s as if the Kelly fits pieces of the puzzle together, but it still doesn’t resemble a picture. The last act is so crammed with sudden-supernatural imagery and plot that one starts to question what is truly happening rather than feeling the punches our heroes are taking. Kelly made many right choices (James Marsden is the real deal) and his subtly on some of the “answers” is a good thing. However, I ended up having to access a spoiler-filled interview with him to explain what happened and why. The Box is a brilliant premise that feels wasted, simply because we can’t follow Kelly’s train of thought. It’s a good thing that Kelly thinks outside the box, but he can’t forget that those whom he is telling his stories too simply don’t understand him.