Avatar (2009)
10/10
As far as epic movies go, "Avatar" certainly ranks up there with the best. Everything is done on such a grand scale, you have the feel of a sweeping epic like "The Lord of the Rings" but all the characterization that most epics lack. "Avatar" is absolutely gorgeous; the CGI is seemless. After one scene with an avatar you don't even notice that almost everything you're seeing is done with computers. This is perhaps more beautiful than "Finding Nemo" or "Up", and those were quite vibrant.
"Avatar" is set in the year 2154 and mankind has more or less desecrated Earth. Humans have started traveling through space and found a moon, Pandora, which is rich in a rare metal, "Unobtainium." The only problem is that the moon has unbreathable air and is inhabited by hostile native. Avatars are genetic hybrids between humans and the natives, and were created to be telepathically controlled by humans so they might be able to communicate and learn about the natives. Sam Worthington ("Terminator Salvation") stars as Jake Sully, a crippled marine who through certain
circumstances is given the chance to go to Pandora to pilot an avatar. His responsibilities are split between head scientist Dr. Grace Augustine (Sigourney Weaver) and his Colonel (Stephen Lang). Both ask him to learn as much as he can about the native people but for very different reasons.
When Jake is "linked" to his avatar he is no long crippled, but a lean, fit warrior. As he adventures through the jungle we are given obscene amounts of eye candy. It is all delicious. Every color imaginably finds its way into this movie and never seems out of place. As the story develops you become more enamored with Pandora, just like Jake. You are taken in by the sounds, the people, the fantastic creatures and the sheer beauty of it. By the time the epic battles start, you are genuinely invested in the outcome, as every character has something at stake.
The runtime is 2 hours 40 minutes. I did not notice at all. This could have just kept going and going, serving up more and more of that delicious eye candy, and I would just keep gobbling it up. I must admit that I went into this as a skeptic. I knew it was going to look good, but I was wary of a terrible movie wrapped in pretty packaging. I was given a wonderfully told story of war, romance, morality and cultural understanding in something much more than pretty packaging.
Saturday, December 19, 2009
Saturday, December 5, 2009
It's Been A While...
I haven't been to the theater in a long time. There are a few things I want to see; I just haven't gotten out. Coincidentally, all star George Clooney. Anyway, I have been watching movies at home via Netflix, and thought I'd share my thoughts on some things that are on DVD.
Gran Torino - Great movie from last year starring Clint Eastwood. Deals with issues of aging, loneliness, and racism. Very well done. I didn't see it when it was in theaters because the trailer made me thing it was going to be an action movie. It is not.
The Great Buck Howard - This came out last spring I think. It is the story of a mentalist (John Malkovich) who is based off of a real life person. It is told from the perspective of his new assistant (Colin Hanks) and manages to be quite funny while maintaining the drama. It does paint Cincinnati in a somewhat negative light, but that doesn't make it a bad film.
The Girlfriend Experience - This is sort of a weird movie, but definitely interesting. It is rather short, but follows a high society escort who is trying to market herself in new ways to bring in more money. We see lots of conversations between her and her clients. All of these scenes hint at who she really is, but the truth is we don't really know.
So there you have it. Some DVDs you should check out if you have the time. I've got Monster, starring Charlize Theron.
Gran Torino - Great movie from last year starring Clint Eastwood. Deals with issues of aging, loneliness, and racism. Very well done. I didn't see it when it was in theaters because the trailer made me thing it was going to be an action movie. It is not.
The Great Buck Howard - This came out last spring I think. It is the story of a mentalist (John Malkovich) who is based off of a real life person. It is told from the perspective of his new assistant (Colin Hanks) and manages to be quite funny while maintaining the drama. It does paint Cincinnati in a somewhat negative light, but that doesn't make it a bad film.
The Girlfriend Experience - This is sort of a weird movie, but definitely interesting. It is rather short, but follows a high society escort who is trying to market herself in new ways to bring in more money. We see lots of conversations between her and her clients. All of these scenes hint at who she really is, but the truth is we don't really know.
So there you have it. Some DVDs you should check out if you have the time. I've got Monster, starring Charlize Theron.
Sunday, November 15, 2009
Paranormal Activities (better late...)
So I saw Paranormal Activities... Four week ago. I'll give a quick right up of this one since it's not really relevant because it isn't in theaters any more.
Paranormal Activities (2009)
8/10
This was a very well made, low budget horror flick. The premise was what makes it work. A young couple of three years (Katie Featherston, Micah Sloat) moves in together and begins to experience "paranormal activities." As it turns out, Katie has been followed by a demon her entire life, something she failed to mention to Micah before moving in with him. Micah buys a camera to document the disturbances which gives us all the first hand footage for this film.
The simplicity is what makes this a scary film. There are no jump-out-and-grab-you type moments and no scare you by actually just grossing you out moments either. The effects are simple, but the reactions feel genuine. Everyone in this situation would be a little disturbed. Adding to the fright is that it all happens in their home (and mostly in the bedroom), the safe place where we go to not feel scared.
The movie paces itself well too. We are introduced bit by bit to the demon and then become more scared by him as he gets angrier and angrier. If only Micah would stop goading him on! As the climax approaches, we know how it will end, but it is still frightening.
I am normally not a fan of the Halloween, scary movies, but this one was a nice change of pace. I didn't have to worry about disturbing images of severed limbs and crushed skulls (save it for the video games, please) and the handheld camera didn't make me sick. As you watch the movie, pay attention to the relationship between Micah and Katie, particularly Micah's attitude and behavior. I think Micah may have been a bit jealous of the demon.
Paranormal Activities (2009)
8/10
This was a very well made, low budget horror flick. The premise was what makes it work. A young couple of three years (Katie Featherston, Micah Sloat) moves in together and begins to experience "paranormal activities." As it turns out, Katie has been followed by a demon her entire life, something she failed to mention to Micah before moving in with him. Micah buys a camera to document the disturbances which gives us all the first hand footage for this film.
The simplicity is what makes this a scary film. There are no jump-out-and-grab-you type moments and no scare you by actually just grossing you out moments either. The effects are simple, but the reactions feel genuine. Everyone in this situation would be a little disturbed. Adding to the fright is that it all happens in their home (and mostly in the bedroom), the safe place where we go to not feel scared.
The movie paces itself well too. We are introduced bit by bit to the demon and then become more scared by him as he gets angrier and angrier. If only Micah would stop goading him on! As the climax approaches, we know how it will end, but it is still frightening.
I am normally not a fan of the Halloween, scary movies, but this one was a nice change of pace. I didn't have to worry about disturbing images of severed limbs and crushed skulls (save it for the video games, please) and the handheld camera didn't make me sick. As you watch the movie, pay attention to the relationship between Micah and Katie, particularly Micah's attitude and behavior. I think Micah may have been a bit jealous of the demon.
Tuesday, September 29, 2009
Surrogates
Surrogates (2009)
7/10
“Surrogates” is another of this year’s many science fiction movies. It is set in a world in the not so distant future where people live out their lives as robots, avatars of their real selves. Bruce Willis plays robot FBI agent Greer as well as rugged old man controlling said robot. The era of robots has all but eliminated crime and all of societies problems: racism, ageism, and apparently socio-economic differences. As such, the job of FBI detective is pretty cut-and-dry until –
A murder. Not just the murder of a surrogate (as the robots are called), but of the controller of the robot, through the robot itself. This confuses the FBI greatly and the situation is complicated because the murder was of a high profile individual. The victim was the son of the creator of surrogates, Dr. Canter (James Cromwell). This apparent motive leads Greer and his partner Agent Jennifer Peters (Rahda Mitchell) to the Dreads, humans who have rejected surrogates as an affront to God. They are led by The Prophet (Ving Rahmes) who routinely gives speeches about revolution from the human reservation in Boston.
From this point we follow the classic story arc that police often follow in which we learn more about the creator of surrogates in order to understand the motive of the crime and more about the prime suspect in order to understand the other side of the story. This is played out in an action oriented kind of way, led by Greer who has not left his home for longer than he can remember but still knows how to kick a robots butt.
Ultimately, the film does an excellent job of creating a world and sticking within the confines it has created for itself. Surrogates raises a lot of interesting questions about how and what life would or should be like with the ever increasing technology around us. Greer has a strained marriage because he and his wife never physically see each other, everything is through the eyes of their surrogates. On the other hand, life is safer. People don’t die in car accidents or rarely suffer illnesses because they are no longer exposed to these dangers. The biggest question asked is, “Where do we draw the line between protecting life and living life?” It is difficult to answer.
Some issues that arise come from the way the film will suggest a question about the world inhabited by surrogates and then quickly move past it. According to the in-film documentaries, 2% of the population are Dreads, while one billion people have surrogates. That doesn’t add up. While they claim racism disappears, we still see minorities everywhere. Where there are minorities there will be racism. You could make an entire film on the subject of whether a black man wants a black or white surrogate. We are told surrogates have become so easy to manufacture that they are accessible to everyone (except the six billion people that don’t have them) but then see that there are different models of surrogates based on pay scales. Greer’s suggested replacement model only has two senses. Why would anyone want to live with only two senses? One low end surrogate has giant fingers so large she can’t unlock a door. Who designed that model?
While the film is certainly an interesting concept, much of the thought that is evoked is glossed over by action action action. After watching this I realized that there are several parallels between it and “Minority Report” (2002). “Minority Report” is definitely the better of the two, but certainly less fun as a concept. It is fun to imagine the where the possibilities can end up when you’re first glimpse of the real Greer is after he has poured himself a glass of water with his surrogate before shutting down for the night (or waking up for the evening).
7/10
“Surrogates” is another of this year’s many science fiction movies. It is set in a world in the not so distant future where people live out their lives as robots, avatars of their real selves. Bruce Willis plays robot FBI agent Greer as well as rugged old man controlling said robot. The era of robots has all but eliminated crime and all of societies problems: racism, ageism, and apparently socio-economic differences. As such, the job of FBI detective is pretty cut-and-dry until –
A murder. Not just the murder of a surrogate (as the robots are called), but of the controller of the robot, through the robot itself. This confuses the FBI greatly and the situation is complicated because the murder was of a high profile individual. The victim was the son of the creator of surrogates, Dr. Canter (James Cromwell). This apparent motive leads Greer and his partner Agent Jennifer Peters (Rahda Mitchell) to the Dreads, humans who have rejected surrogates as an affront to God. They are led by The Prophet (Ving Rahmes) who routinely gives speeches about revolution from the human reservation in Boston.
From this point we follow the classic story arc that police often follow in which we learn more about the creator of surrogates in order to understand the motive of the crime and more about the prime suspect in order to understand the other side of the story. This is played out in an action oriented kind of way, led by Greer who has not left his home for longer than he can remember but still knows how to kick a robots butt.
Ultimately, the film does an excellent job of creating a world and sticking within the confines it has created for itself. Surrogates raises a lot of interesting questions about how and what life would or should be like with the ever increasing technology around us. Greer has a strained marriage because he and his wife never physically see each other, everything is through the eyes of their surrogates. On the other hand, life is safer. People don’t die in car accidents or rarely suffer illnesses because they are no longer exposed to these dangers. The biggest question asked is, “Where do we draw the line between protecting life and living life?” It is difficult to answer.
Some issues that arise come from the way the film will suggest a question about the world inhabited by surrogates and then quickly move past it. According to the in-film documentaries, 2% of the population are Dreads, while one billion people have surrogates. That doesn’t add up. While they claim racism disappears, we still see minorities everywhere. Where there are minorities there will be racism. You could make an entire film on the subject of whether a black man wants a black or white surrogate. We are told surrogates have become so easy to manufacture that they are accessible to everyone (except the six billion people that don’t have them) but then see that there are different models of surrogates based on pay scales. Greer’s suggested replacement model only has two senses. Why would anyone want to live with only two senses? One low end surrogate has giant fingers so large she can’t unlock a door. Who designed that model?
While the film is certainly an interesting concept, much of the thought that is evoked is glossed over by action action action. After watching this I realized that there are several parallels between it and “Minority Report” (2002). “Minority Report” is definitely the better of the two, but certainly less fun as a concept. It is fun to imagine the where the possibilities can end up when you’re first glimpse of the real Greer is after he has poured himself a glass of water with his surrogate before shutting down for the night (or waking up for the evening).
My Movie Reviews
Hi, I'm Kyle Robinson! You might remember me from such blogs as "A View of the World From A Round State" and "The Cinema: How Mediocre Books Make Their Money."
I have been going to a TON of movies this year (all Jason and Daniel's fault). I love movies, and a dream job would be to write about them and watch them all the time. As such, I'm trying a new hobby... writing about them (since I already watch them all the time). This blog is mostly for my own amusement, maybe a way to improve my writing. Feel free to let me know what you think of the movies I've written about. I would enjoy some discussion :)
Here are my guidelines:
To start out, I'm only going to write about movies I've seen in theaters. This way I can try to eliminate bias I would get from other reviews or just random talk I pick up. Also, it will mean I don't have time to think things over too much. You'll mostly get my first impressions.
I'm scoring on a ten point scale, mostly because the first one I did I couldn't decide between 2.5 and 3 stars. Wouldn't you know it, if you carry that out to an 8-point scale (which is what the 0 to 4 stars really is) you would want a score of about 7. BOOYA! We have my scale. I will not use half points. SOOO....
10 - 9 is a score of a movie I think you should go out of your way to see. It is great, loved by all (most).
8 - 7 is a movie that was good. Maybe not for everyone, but if you stumble across it or get a chance to see it, it would be worth your time.
6 -5 is for fun movies, that were pretty good but were missing that special something. Maybe this would be one of those movies that isn't all that special, but you watch whenever you see it on cable (like I am with Knight's Tale).
4 - 3 generally not a very good move. Likely only good for the one or two scenes that make you laugh out loud are give you a good scare or deafen you with awesome explosions.
2 - 1 mean please avoid this movie. You won't like it, no one would. (I'm looking at you Wolf Creek).
I have been going to a TON of movies this year (all Jason and Daniel's fault). I love movies, and a dream job would be to write about them and watch them all the time. As such, I'm trying a new hobby... writing about them (since I already watch them all the time). This blog is mostly for my own amusement, maybe a way to improve my writing. Feel free to let me know what you think of the movies I've written about. I would enjoy some discussion :)
Here are my guidelines:
To start out, I'm only going to write about movies I've seen in theaters. This way I can try to eliminate bias I would get from other reviews or just random talk I pick up. Also, it will mean I don't have time to think things over too much. You'll mostly get my first impressions.
I'm scoring on a ten point scale, mostly because the first one I did I couldn't decide between 2.5 and 3 stars. Wouldn't you know it, if you carry that out to an 8-point scale (which is what the 0 to 4 stars really is) you would want a score of about 7. BOOYA! We have my scale. I will not use half points. SOOO....
10 - 9 is a score of a movie I think you should go out of your way to see. It is great, loved by all (most).
8 - 7 is a movie that was good. Maybe not for everyone, but if you stumble across it or get a chance to see it, it would be worth your time.
6 -5 is for fun movies, that were pretty good but were missing that special something. Maybe this would be one of those movies that isn't all that special, but you watch whenever you see it on cable (like I am with Knight's Tale).
4 - 3 generally not a very good move. Likely only good for the one or two scenes that make you laugh out loud are give you a good scare or deafen you with awesome explosions.
2 - 1 mean please avoid this movie. You won't like it, no one would. (I'm looking at you Wolf Creek).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)