Posts Tagged ‘Oscar?’
Avatar (2009)
Friday, December 25th, 2009
If you saw the trailer, or have heard anyone talk about the movie, you know the whole story. If you’ve seen more then three movies in your lifetime you know the entire story. Something new and different, or at least an attempt towards it, would be nice. Even hiding cleaver clues throughout to be unveiled later would have been enough change. Instead the foreshadowing isn’t so much a subtle shadow as moments of complete blackness. While requests are being made, some smarter dialogue would be appreciated as well. Those things are forgivable though, because story is not what this movie is about.
James Cameron knew it; so the necessary exposition is right up front. Got it out of the way so we could dive (quite literally) into the unknown existence of Pandora. That is what this movie is about. Discovering a whole new world, new species, and new ways of life. Don’t focus on the political undertones. Don’t focus on the technology bringing the movie to life (though The People’s teeth kept distracting me). Enjoy a movie that took twelve years to develop in order to make you feel the wonder and awe of a little kid again.
As the visuals are a large part of this new world go check it out in a theater, where it is designed to be seen. If IMAX in 3-d is available where you’re at, go get your tickets. Though if you too are less then fond of heights, the 3-d thing is a little too effective at times… and subtitles in 3-d mess with your eyes’ focus. But that hardly matters. It’s a movie to be seen in full glory, in 3-d, and at the biggest screen you can find.
It is the experience of Avatar that lives up to the hype. The submergence and discovery of a new land makes you want to become a scout in a foreign country. People are programmed to discover, and this (nearly) three hour video game allows you to do things our bodies aren’t capable of and go places you could never travel to.
Sure I could make some complaints and point out things I wish were in the movie, but it was just too much fun.
Tags: 3-D, movies, Oscar?, Review
Posted in Review, movies | No Comments »
Brothers (2009)
Tuesday, December 22nd, 2009
Made plans in a bar the night before to go see one of a few movies. Arriving at the theater I thought we were seeing Up In the Air (2009). Being in the mindset for a comedy and sitting down to Brothers was a sucker punch.
The best sucker punch ever. The movie is intense. It’s gritty. It’s personable. It hits close to home. It locks you in and doesn’t let go until the credits roll. And even then it just lets you out of the theater, days later the movie is still rolling around in your head looking for an answer that doesn’t seem to be coming.
As long as you’ve seen the trailer, this next part won’t spoil anything. If you’ve yet to see the trailer, don’t! The movie would be better having not seen it. It’s over manipulating, over Hollywood-ing, and reveals story that is deftly laid out in the movie itself. Departmental support enhanced the story. The make-up is great, though subtle. I have no idea how they got body markings that realistic. The score was somber without dragging you down. The location was cold and stark with snow in almost every exterior. Everything seemed to be placed in a way to allowing acting to amplify story.
The audience is aligned with the characters. Viewer knowledge is limited to that of the characters. Meaning at times you know no more then anyone on screen, and at times you know something you wish everyone on screen knew what everyone else on screen knew. It created sympathy and frustration for characters who are harboring truths from others and for those whose truths are not being heard. A surprise was the acting of the two daughters, Bailee Madison and Mare Winningham. They are working with some of the most accurate dialogue for a kid that I’ve heard. The joke at the dinner table is perfectly executed by everyone involved. And both can cry on cue, which is always impressive. Tobey Maguire has his best performance in a long time if not ever, and lost more weight then Jenny Craig could. Jake Gyllenhaal and Natalie Portman were great in supporting roles highlighting Sam’s struggle to find the human side in himself again. Hoping to help him recognize the life before him as worth fighting to have back. It is not a movie about war, but a movie about brothers, which sounds dumb considering the title. The idea is introduced early on but buries itself. It transfers from the support of a brother at home to brothers in war back to a role reversal of familial brothers. In the depths of Sam’s personal battle the idea resurfaces as a final hope of survival.
Unless you’re my Mother, who would hate the movie and scold me for telling her to see it, you should go see Brothers. Lose the lower third and ticker, bring the newspapers to life, and watch it with a pillow. If you hurry up and see it at AMC 16 in Burbank, CA like we did there is an added bonus. A speaker popped in a constant steady rhythm throughout the entire film. Like a single droplet of water falling, it brought a whole new level of agitation and frustration to the viewing.
“Elephant!”
“Only the dead have seen the end of war…”
Tags: movies, Oscar?, Review, War
Posted in Review, movies | No Comments »
The Hurt Locker (2009)
Tuesday, December 22nd, 2009
My knowledge of this film was limited when I sat down to watch:
- Directed by a woman
- Written by a reporter imbedded with an EOD unit
- Shot on location (turns out this isn’t true, but Kuwait and Jordan are close)
- It’s the unit a friend of mine was in for three years
The unique perspective of a journalist second one is reason enough to watch. When the movie was originally released the title had buzz. I assumed (made an ass out of you and me, or really just me) it was horror/gore. No idea why. But now it is Christmas time and screener season and a perfect time to watch.
The movie could have been stronger, but it still stands above a lot of war movies out there. A glimpse into a dangerous unit some don’t even know exists. Handheld super 16? Okay, sounds fun. Freestanding scenes written to get the most out of the moment? Excellent*. A non-narrative character film? Fitting.
(*Thinking of the scene with the little building and flat tire. Which was well done for dramatic purposes, and I liked it while watching it. The second time I though about it though there seemed to be a lot of flaws and dumb things going on.)
The characters are garnishing a lot of attention, especially SSgt. William James. Having not been in the unit nor the service I’ll withhold judgment on if he’d be allowed in that unit with his techniques. As far as the character goes, it worked for me. There wasn’t as much character development in the rest of the unit. Spc. Owen Eldridge was as interesting to me as the lead was. 
It would have been an effective study to develop alongside fulfilling the opening quote through James. The best part of the lack of a real storyline was the sense of the mundane life of a soldier. Even with their daily routine consisting of disarming unknown bombs and being shot at. There is no happy heroic arch, it is day after day after day. Seems accurate from the stories I’ve heard.
That is not to say that the film is boring. That’s the beauty of following the Explosive Ordinance Disposal (EOD) unit. It’s suspenseful, and the more you get to know the characters the more you are rooting for the title to reach zero days left in Bravo Company’s rotation. The movie hits you deeper when you remember that the actors are portraying a unit that is currently living what you’re watching. Reflecting upon the film has made me like it less.
It’s a good movie. Worth watching. Worth taking the time to digest. Worth discussing afterwards. And like we did, you can start with the music used in the final scene. Because, while everything seemed to fit up until that moment, oh my goodness was it a pretty bad choice.
“The rush of battle is often a potent and lethal addiction, for war is a drug.” –Chris Hedges
Tags: movies, Oscar?, Review, War
Posted in Review, movies | No Comments »
Inglourious Basterds (2009)
Tuesday, December 22nd, 2009
a.k.a. Once Upon a Time in Nazi Occupied France (the previous spaghetti western meets WWII title)
This needs to be prefaced. After having just watched John Dillinger do his thing in Public Enemies I wasn’t all that excited to watch Tarantino do his to WWII.
The movie started with the expectation of being turned off a half hour later, but the opening scene sucked me in. It was a smart way to introduce the language use in the movie. Had amazing, seldom seen, pacing and perfectly timed reveals building the tension. Then triggers started being pulled. Yup, a Tarantino product. Luckily that comes with a lot more good then it does gore. The opening scene alone meant I’d see the film through to the end. But I’d have my computer open for distraction.
Almost any scene I watched was great. I’m going to go out on a limb and say that there were even more good ones in between that I missed. Finally, shortly before Chapter Five, my attention got sucked in to fully focus.
Shortly after moving out here my roommate came home with the script and (with my permission) told me all about it. I am far from a historian, but oddly protective of WWII and its accuracy. So the ending was just the completion of a story arch, and irked me a bit. I’m hoping there were at least some who got to see it not knowing the end. The way it was intended for. Knowing what really happened in the war and having their minds implode when watching the finale of the film.
What I saw early in the movie was good. The entire ending was entertaining. At some point I should finish watching all the pieces in the middle. The more I think back on it the more I liked the movie, I’m sure there’s a breaking point at which time I’ll go back to my previous opinion.
“I love rumors! Facts can be so misleading, where rumors, true or false, are often revealing.”
Tags: movies, Oscar?, Review, War
Posted in Review, movies | No Comments »
Public Enemies (2009)
Sunday, December 20th, 2009
The film is very much what you’d expect from the synopsis: “the Feds trying to take down notorious American gangsters.” Old timey suits, old timey cars, and old timey tommy guns (Colt M1921AC Thompson) going off at people wearing new timey squibs.
Maybe I was in the wrong mindset to watch John Dillinger do his thing, but I was relieved to see the courtroom twenty minutes in and excited to watch a legal battle federalizing criminal manhunts. I was then disappointed to realize we wouldn’t be spending much time inside a courtroom during the next 2 hours and 5 minutes. At least there was a cat and mouse chase to watch.
[Yes, I was looking at the time. This is both a habit from writing papers and a sign that I’m not completely engrossed in the film.]
Compared to its 1930s crime counterpart Public Enemies falls short. When faced with the opportunity to be completely amazing or just another mediocre DVD to forget about, it chose the latter. The documentary feel was an interesting approach, but didn’t work and became boring early on. It created no more of an emotional attachment to characters then a reenactment on a bad crime show. The composer saved the film a little bit. The score informed me the most about what I Was supposed to be feeling at any given moment. But besides the score, sets, and costume there is little worth watching.
The film picks up every once in a while, but it doesn’t hold and the payoff is minimal. The story is worth knowing as part of our history, but should be learned in some other, any other, way. If you need your old timey crime fix, check out The Untouchables (1987). In fact, even if you’re not looking to specifically watch a crime drama sit down to The Untouchables. It’s that good.
“What keeps you up nights, Mr. Dillinger?” “Coffee.”
Tags: movies, Oscar?, Review
Posted in Review, movies | 1 Comment »