Hello folks. The Doctor has returned. Maybe you don't care. But it's nice to be writing again. I just wanted to give you a quick movie review on Avatar. Because I know there aren't any of THOSE out there. But maybe mine will be a little different and interesting to you. Or not. But hey, give it a read while you're here. After the jump...
Alright. So Avatar. I think I had been anticipating its release for at least 18 months. I spend a great deal of time perusing the big board they have there about what upcoming releases people are interested in. So every few weeks I go down and look through the top 50 and see what might be interesting. I stay abreast (*breast*!!! hahaha) of anything I find interesting. And I become obsessed with movies I think will be amazing. Avatar was one of those movies. From the first time I read that James Cameron had this film coming out until finally seeing late December, I was hooked.
So let's start with what I actually thought of the film. I think there is only one correct word to use: epic. I think that applies in two different senses. First, we'll go with the more complimentary of the two meanings. The movie was an epic undertaking and has paved the way for new and incredibly appealing uses of movie technology in the future. The 3D elements of the film were amazing. They weren't haughty or overdone. They gave depth not only to the screen, but to the characters. They made the world real and accessible and something you cared about. It was an experience I have not had too often. I'd say the closest thing to that was the Star Wars universe, but really this blew that out of the water.
The other way the word "epic" describes the film is through the story line. It's truly epic. Which is a good thing and a bad. It's a good thing insomuch as the storyline feels important and historically significant. The movie allows you to feel as though you are reliving the legendary times of the Na'vi's past while also painting the aggressively expansionary tendencies of the human race as evil and unacceptable. Even though they are fighting for their already established existence, the viewer almost feels as if he's watching the times that truly create the Na'vi as a people. Their origin tale, or something like that.
However, the outcome is almost too good, too squeaky clean to fall in love with. Which is sometimes how epic tales can be given their age-old or classic nature. You feel you already know the ending, so it lacks that literary element of surprise, making the reader miss out on that burning desire to see the story through to the end. Which is not necessarily a bad thing. But with James Cameron's classic Sci-Fi films (take Alien or The Abyss for example), there is something about the movies that make you HAVE to know what is going to happen, that makes you need it. And Avatar isn't that.
But it still is a great movie, more for the 3D and world-crafting elements than anything else. It lived up to and probably exceeded my expectations in a number of ways. I'm glad it was made, and I'm even more glad it was successful, because now more and more films will try and be just as... epic.
One last point before I get you out of here. It's been a successful appointment so far, so hopefully this doesn't take anything away from it. But I have this friend who I've written about before. He's in the army. Definitely a military type. And he had a tremendously different viewing experience than I think most people would. He was rooting for the humans and could not believe that Jake Sully would abandon his race to support a bunch of savages. I thought this through with him, trying to figure out if his viewpoint could be defended by any sort of human logic, and we decided it could not. The reason he admitted this was because the soldiers he identified with were not of the national variety - they were mercenaries who only did these things to make a buck. That is indefensible, and he is a douche for thinking to support them at all.
Consider yourself vaccinated from the Swine Flu.
PS - Apparently there is a Na'vi sex scene that was deleted from the movie to keep it PG-13. And it will be on the DVD. Something to look forward to there...
RX - More Big Budget Science Fiction Films
The Doctor
Friday, January 8, 2010
An Image Used to Represent You on Forums, You Mean?
Friday, August 1, 2008
The Dark Knight Review: A Look To The Future
So here is part two of my highly anticipated TDK review. Consider yourself privileged to read it. Just kidding. What I try to do in this half, though, is come at TDK in a way that few others have. What I'll be focusing on is the future of the franchise. Can Nolan's Batman successfully inhabit a third installment or would it turn out something like Spider-Man 3, widely regarded as the worst possible Spiderman movie they could have made. Well, find out what's in store for our gadgeted-billionaire after the jump.
Beyond Gotham's pulchritudinous skyline and its mob underworld lies Batman's biggest opposition to another movie: the real world. First, the Joker is alive at the film's end, and Nolan left us believing that, although the Joker is in jail, his chaotic dance with Batman will go on forever. But Heath has passed on. And don't even try to claim that someone could replace him. I mean, sure, they could, but it would be awful. No one can stand up to the performance Heath did without completely reimagining not only the character, but the franchise. It would be like doing the Clone Wars movie with everyone in cartoon mode except for Anakin, leaving the galaxy far far away with one in-the-flesh person wearing the outdated life-sustaining gear of the late 1970's. Really picture how awful that could be. Now imagine a different actor playing the Joker in a future Batman movie........
Yeah, you're right, the "replacement Joker" Batman movie would be worse. Way, way worse.
Besides the Heath issues, Christian Bale has problems of his own. First of all, Bale has inhabited a number of roles in his career and has done so because he loves the challenge of taking on new characters. Although he has stated he'd be happy to do a Batman 3 (so long as Nolan stays on), it certainly wouldn't be the challenge he's looking for. Besides his potential lack of interest, Bale has recently filed a statement with Scotland Yard in regards to a matter that occurred during the opening weekend of TDK. Now this isn’t just a statement where he says what he knows about an accident he may have witnessed or something like that. No. The incident at hand involves both his mother and sister claiming that he got upset and assaulted the two of them in their hotel room. What kind of sick weirdo grown man beats on their sister AND mother (especially outside the privacy of his own home)? Needless to say, this could develop into a substantial criminal situation in the near future. Think Chris Henry and the Bengals (who will never play for them again because of his blatant disregard for the law). Talent plus psychotic opposition to real world lawlessness do not mix. Lastly, Christian Bale is an insane actor and man. Earlier in his career, he lost 60 pounds for his role in the Machinist (30% of his body weight)! He has played characters ranging from Jesus to Patrick Bateman (in American Psycho) and has told reporters on record that the role of Jesus gave him nightmares, whereas "Patrick Bateman? Nothing." He hates the spotlight, saying to the media that he has "no desire for people to get their facts right about [him]." When asked questions about his personal life, he simply makes up stories so that no one knows what his deal is. Bale has had all the media attention he can handle between The Dark Knight’s success and his gathering legal troubles, and with Terminator Salvation: The Future Begins coming out in 2009, I think Bale will be skeptical of any project that will keep him in the limelight.
The final real world issue is Nolan. He, like Bale, is a guy that likes to create and imagine. I think he'll be itching for something new after this most recent film which simply adds to the oft cinematically represented Batman franchise. He's a trailblazer, kind of like Strider in the Lord of the Rings, but not nearly as gay (or attractive…), and with not anything close to the same fetish for little people. He just can't settle down and nothing can make him stay in one place for too long. Sort of like how your dad feels about you, like how he can't stand the sight of you and left your mom because of it. Trust me, he told me. Anyway, look for Nolan to go on to bigger and better things. Also, after killing the box office and creating such a great film, what else is there to do for Nolan? Wouldn’t you feel like you’ve done all you could as far as Batman is concerned if you were this director, did this great a job, and were inherently artsy and creative as all directors are? I just think he will want to move on, whether he should or should not. He simply crushed a movie with the Batman and the Joker, which is like the holy grail of Batman movies. He’ll want out.
Beyond these pressing real world issues, the world of Gotham may not NEED another movie. First of all, Nolan's Gotham has thrived on realism and plausibility. If you look at possible villains for the next installment (althought with a great cast, even some of the slightly more minor and slightly less realistic characters can be brought to life by Nolan in a way that reflects the successes of TDK), who would be real enough to inhabit Nolan's world? Who could exist in Gotham the way the Joker or Two Face did? Sure, people like to point to Batman Begins and its list of relatively minor villains (i.e. Scarecrow and Ra's Al Ghul), but now that the Joker and Two Face have been created, how could Nolan go back to a potpourri of minor villains? I honestly don't think he can. It would tarnish the masterpiece that was TDK. Also, with Commissioner Gordon's final speech, yes we have now set the stage for the future of Batman, but is it a stage on which the show must be performed? Couldn't that ending, with Batman running from the people he has given everything to serve and save, be enough? Isn't it sort of an "and the rest is history" moment?
Good people have died in battle, Batman has beaten back evil (for now), he lost his love (even before her death), the village has come after him in a Frankenstein-esque ending, and still Batman fights evil in their name. We know now that he can never truly win because evil and chaos will never be defeated, but he will always fight on as Batman or any true hero must. If the story isn't ended here, when can it possibly end? If it's just going to be a cyclic story about a new villain (which is either too dull or too outlandish when compared with the Joker and Two Face), same Batman (deep voice, kung fu, new gadgets), same outcome (evil is turned away by The Dark Knight, though it shall return again), same Alfred, same cool toys (OK, "new" but with the same idea), same boy-toy Bruce Wayne antics, and same Gotham (dark but lightening, rescued but still in need of saving), then why bother? Within Nolan's two-volume Gotham universe, Bruce has come from the little boy in the alley to the lost man searching for his way to the hero he wanted to be to the selfless vigilante he is now. That is a long way for a character to develop. Why let him become static in another movie after all that growth and self-revelation? The only way it could continue is if Batman could one day go out on top, but that would undercut everything Nolan fought so hard to brand into our fleshy frontal lobes: he can't win in the storybook sense. He's doomed to forever fight for a justice he can't attain for the people he can't win over. He's reached the bottom, but the ceiling has come down with him, trapping him forever in this constant state of opposing unrelenting evil, leaving him destined to impose justice and order with chaos and violence forevermore.
Thursday, July 31, 2008
The Dark Knight Review: The One You've Been Dreaming Of
Note: This article is directed at those dedicated masses that have already seen the film. Spoilers follow. You’ve been warned.
The Review
Honestly, I was slightly disappointed after my first viewing, and for all of the common reasons you can read at any sci-fi, movie, or Batman site. The story was not as novel as “Batman Begins” (with the origin and development of Batman). It was also LONG as hell with many people calling it "a movie and a half." Yes, that's more for your money, but TDK went from having a crisp ending at about an hour and forty-five minutes in to forcing the second half of the movie to an abrupt halt. The other thing that left a bad taste in my mouth walking away for the first time was the amount of preaching from virtually every character. From Batman to Rachel to Harvey to Alfred to The Joker himself, everyone spent a great deal of their lines discussing what was right, why it was right, how justice should be served, if it should be served at all, and what being a hero means. I mean, I get the whole "Justice vs. Chaos" dichotomy going on. Batman brings chaos to the “order” that was mob-ruled Gotham, but then he and Harvey try to impose justice to replace the chaos, but The Joker does all he can to disturb that and bring Harvey to see that Chaos is the only fair way. I get the hero vs. "something more" distinction for Batman, that he wears the mask so that he can make the tough decision for the greater good. I get that truth needs to be buried and lines need to be crossed sometimes. All I ask is that the director show some faith in the viewer to draw those conclusions on his own.
Then I saw it again. And it was more amazing to me somehow. I appreciated the subtleties of Heath Ledger's Joker. Yes, I liked his performance the first time, but it wasn't anything more than what I had expected from reading the reviews and seeing the trailers. He fully exceeded my expectations when I gave him the attention to detail he deserved. I can't even describe it, but go see it and ask yourself this: has anyone in the history of the role ever made it look so plausible? He is totally believable, totally real, and totally demented. Without his perfect character the movie falls apart. Which brings me to my next point: the movie was realistic and believable. It’s about heroes and villains, sure, but ones that don’t have powers. It’s about people that are willing to put it all on the line for what they believe, and anyone in this world could do that with the proper motivation and dedication. TDK is not for kids or even teens. It's adult, and it's perfect that way. Nolan panders to no audience for ticket sales (i.e. groin shots or sexual innuendos for the teen audience) and still rakes in more cash each successive day than any other film in history. Finally, I love that this movie lets the hero fall. He is so much darker than not only any Batman has ever been, but any popular, cinematic superhero in general. Hospitals blow up. People get hurt. Terror reigns. Rachel and Harvey, the two noblest characters in the film, DIE. Batman becomes the enemy of both sides, fighting hostages, henchman, and the SWAT team all at once in a scene towards the end. As Harvey promised earlier in the movie: "you either die a hero or live long enough to see yourself become the villain.” And as Gordon explains at the movie’s close, Batman is "the hero that Gotham deserves, but not the one it needs right now.” (Note: Yes, these are instances of the preaching that I mentioned earlier, but it isn’t like the rest of the dialogue concerning those lofty issues. These are sweet lines that, in retrospect, are useful at summarizing key motifs in the movie. What I’m trying to say is BLOW ME!) It was a great movie. It had action but also depth, heroes but also Heath, victory but also utter defeat.
So that was my review. I'm sorry if you've read something similar recently, but I promise you mine was bigger... I mean better. Now for the fun. What lies ahead for the Batman franchise? My guess is not much. Why? Well that's why you're still reading, isn't it? Sorry to be the burst your bubble, but you'll have to wait until next time for the other half of this post. Don't want to go spoiling your supper now, do I?
As the old cartoons used to say, "Same BatTime, same BatChannel!"
Saturday, July 19, 2008
BIBTTP Reviews... The Dark Knight
As the last preview rolled, the DC Comics logo flashed, and the screen went black for the 12:01 showing of "The Dark Knight", a strange thought popped in my head. Even though I'd been eagerly awaiting its release, watching every trailer, reading every review, going to see the movie as soon as humanly possible, I didn't want to see this movie. Everything I had seen, everything I had read, everything I had heard had told me how great "The Dark Knight" was going to be. And yet... what if it wasn't? What if they'd all been setting me up for some spectacular failure, if the explosions were crappy, if the storyline didn't make any sense, and if, worst of all, Heath Ledger's much-hailed Joker performance turned out to be a hack job. If I didn't see it, if it never started, I could always imagine it to be that truly great film, and I would never need fear disappointment.
What an idiot I was. "The Dark Knight" was everything I had been promised and more. To be clear--for the movie itself is not afraid to be blunt about it--this is the story of opposites, of light and darkness. District Attorney Harvey Dent (Nick Nolte of "Thank You For Smoking") is Gotham City's "White Knight", while Batman is its eponymous "Dark Knight". We are poignantly reminded that is it always darkest before the dawn. And characters are constantly fighting their own dual natures, as the dark and light that is in all of us fights for control.
I could go into some whole deep-psyche thing and talk about how both Bruce Wayne and Dent are each torn between the light, how other characters reveal their own struggles, too, and how each of us, truly, must confront that evil lurking within, balance it with the good we have and share with the world. But I'm not going to do that.
Instead, I'm going to talk about the Joker.
Now, I don't know how the Oscars voters are going to react to this. I don't know if they're going to be hestitant to recognize someone who's dead, or someone who was in a summer superhero blockbuster flick, or someone who spends the whole movie wearing ridiculous makeup. Hell, I don't even know if Ledger would be up for Best Actor or Best Supporting. But he'd better win. Because my God, what an amazing performance.
See, characters are usually great because of their complexity. As I said, in "The Dark Knight" we see figures torn between the light and the darkness, between good and evil, and these characters are great, and plenty complex. But with Ledger's Joker--and make no mistake about it: this Ledger's Joker, and the Joker is Ledger; Nicholson can suck it--there is no complexity. He is an absolute: he came out of nowhere, he wants nothing, and he won't be back. (That's not in any way a spoiler, just observing that no one else could put what Ledger did into the Joker.) Cast into a black-and-white morality play, the Joker is like a top spinning through a chessboard: he has no time for or interest in rules. As Alfred remarks of him, "Some men just like to watch the world burn." Madness personified, the nihilist Joker is spectacular because he's so simple. Let others determine the morality of their actions, let others fight it out for the soul of Gotham, let others struggle between light and dark. While the world around him burns, he is.
RIP, Heath. You put your heart and soul into this one.
Saturday, March 29, 2008
Heath Is No Joke
With The Dark Knight scheduled to come out July 18, many are still wondering if the studios will decide to change anything due to Heath Ledger's death earlier this year. It seems as though Warner Brothers and director Christopher Nolan have decided to move along with their initial plans regarding the marketing time-line for the film. While there was a small hiatus after Ledger's death, viral marketing websites are back up, trying to reel in fans into the world of Gotham. As much fun, interesting, and effective those sites are for increasing the hype on the movie, I sincerely believe that this movie's success will and should be mostly credited to Ledger's performance. Yes, Christopher Nolan has completely transformed the Batman universe from Schumacher's commercialized and "kid-friendly" vision, into a darker, more profound world. But judging from the few trailers and TV spots that have been released so far, it seems as though Ledger's portrayal of the Joker will make or break the movie. They've already placed so much emphasis on his character throughout the marketing of the movie so far, that they clearly want fans to focus on the dynamic that Ledger's performance will bring on to the screen. From what I've seen, I think Ledger truly nails the part. Every time I catch the trailer on TV, Ledger's twisted laugh and his delirious demeanor get me excited to watch the film. I believe that his portrayal of the Joker will match, and maybe even beat Jack Nicholson's portrayal. Now I know that seems a little rash and impulsive. Frankly, I think Nicholson has rarely been upstaged, if ever, in any role he's taken. But there's something about Ledger that I like. Nolan's take on the Joker is much less cartoonish. Its almost like you sympathize for the character as you can feel the anguish in his demeanor with his ragged wardrobe and his smeared make-up. But then Ledger hits you with his sinister and mischievous smile that make you realize how evil his character is. I'll say it again, I think Ledger's performance will make or break this film. I'm very impressed with what they've done with the character, so I say Ledger's performance will be incredible, and will bring a fresh, and more appropriate depiction of the Joker to younger generations. Ultimately, it'll come down to one factor. I think younger generations will be more open and enjoy this portrayal of the Joker. But if Nolan and Ledger are able to sell it to fans of the Tim Burton version, then Warner Brothers will be celebrating a big compensation. This role will become one of, if not the defining role of Ledger's short, but successful career.
Friday, March 7, 2008
Wanted
I'm big into movies. As of recently, I've been a sucker for the viral marketing that movies like Cloverfield and I Am Legend have used to build up the hype before the release date. Wanted is one of the newest graphic novel adaptations coming to the big screen that looks like may be a sleeper for one of the best movies to watch this summer. It might be a little hard with WALL*E, Iron Man, and The Dark Knight all having great prognostications for their success. Coming Soon just came out with the newest trailer for Wanted. Definitely check it out. Click on "read more" to see it.