"Avatar" Review

Months before I had seen so much as a vague concept sketch for "Avatar," I remember hearing that it would "fuck my eyeballs." This statement was never employed in any official capacity by James Cameron or his marketing team, but rather coalesced online from Hollywood hearsay and snowballing hype. After all, this was the film Cameron, geek champion of the early Terminator franchise and 'titanic' personage behind the highest grossing film of all time, had been taming for decades, patiently awaiting the maturation of computer generated imagery and developing dual-lens 3D technology to realize his initial dream in all its stunning audacity.

Well, the consumer-end product is much more subtle than the suggested act of ocular penetration would indicate. Cameron has indeed achieved a landmark in 3D storytelling, using the effect sparingly to enhance audience immersion rather than to superficially draw attention to the gimmick. Set against the risky backdrop of an epic sci-fi/action film, "Avatar" mercifully resists the urge to send bullets or arrows whizzing through the screen, or to dredge the forests of Pandora past the fourth wall. Convincing three-dimensional depth of field is his greatest triumph, and Cameron crafts a world both vibrant and vivacious. However, outside the technical mastery and aesthetic perk, the world beyond my curiously uncomfortable plastic glasses quickly unraveled.

To begin, "Avatar" is beautiful to a fault. Cameron's Pandora, home to the peaceful, humanoid Na'vi and gobs of subterranean 'unobtainium,' which draw mankind and its drills, is described by militant antagonist Colonel Quaritch (Stephen Lang) as a perilous nightmare of a planet. "If there is a hell," he spits at a platoon of new recruits, "You might want to go there for some R&R after a tour on Pandora." Sounds terrifying, Colonel, but the visuals never really live up to it. Sure, our hero Jake Sully (Sam Worthington) comes to odds with some of the less friendly wildlife, but the forests themselves are always teeming with phosphorescent flowers and rich foliage illuminated by striking filtered sunlight. The bottom line is that Pandora is too utopian to ever feel like a real place, especially in contrast to the gritty live-action segments. There's a degree of intentional juxtaposition there, but the gap is ultimately too wide for a single creative world to bridge.

Besides being one-dimensionally wonderful, the design of Pandora's creatures and locales is seriously uninspired. As a love story, Cameron risks very little in making the Na'vi essentially nine-foot tall humans with tails, and the supporting creatures are textbook fantasy. You have your dragons, your (six-legged) horses, and your garden-variety re-imaginings of other familiar animals with supplemental eyes and appendages. Given that Cameron treats "Avatar" as an exercise in world building, its here that his film most disappoints. Beyond the intriguing concept of inter-species connectivity, which allows the Na'vi to link physically and spiritually with the flora and fauna of Pandora, Cameron's creatures are gorgeously rendered but safe and boring.

These predominantly aesthetic complaints may seem trivial in the greater context of the film, and to a certain extent they are, but "Avatar" is an effects vehicle, and those elements should be supporting the merely serviceable story rather than detracting from it. "Avatar," for all its unoriginality, still succeeds as a high-octane blockbuster, far surpassing forgettable summer fare like "Transformers 2," or the sorry state of the Terminator franchise Cameron founded. His film is confidently constructed, immersive, and often enjoyable, if overlong and unoriginal. It manages to weave its tale using a compelling new technology without feeling like a glorified tech demo, which is an accomplishment in itself.

"Avatar" may not be the monumental leap forward in storytelling some anticipated, but it proves 3D can be used for more than making an audience flinch. There's plenty to enjoy when you don't buy into the hyperbole, so mediate your expectations and let Cameron's latest looker do what it does best: fondle your eyeballs.

3.5/5

FARCE/FILM Episode 25: Sherlock Holmes

--> Episode 25: 12/27/09 <--

Hosts: Colin George, Sonic Kim, Brian Johanson

Intro – 00:00
Top 5 – 04:04
Sherlock Holmes (spoilers) – 12:14
At-home Movie Round-up – 47:46
(“The Blind Side”, “Percy Jackson” trailer)
Second Opinion – 56:08
(“Inglorious Basterds”)
Events and Outro – 01:05:49

"Sherlock Holmes"

Colin:

Sonic:

Brian:

FARCE/FILM Episode 24: Avatar

--> Episode 24: 12/21/09 <--

Hosts: Colin George, Kevin Mauer, Jonathan Mauer

Intro - 00:00

Top 5 - 03:16

Avatar (Spoilers) - 09:42

Mauer Movie Roundup - 43:12

("Funny People", "Frozen" Trailer)

I Can't Believe You've Never Seen - 45:47

("Mulholland Drive", "Blue Velvet")

Events and Outro - 47:38

"Avatar"

Colin:

Kevin:

Jon:

HBO Goes Mobile

Holy Hulu, when did this happen? Subscription-based cable network HBO looks to finally be countering criticism of their tepid online presence through the public beta of what’s being called “HBO GO.” The service offers an internet reservoir of the company’s original series, films, and late-night specials, though if the prospect of having the entire library of HBO programming at your fingertips sounds too good to be true, brace yourself, there are a few asterisks.

First, the service is available free of charge, but only to current HBO subscribers with Comcast or select Verizon beta accounts. The 'GO' homepage features a "Television Provider" drop-down menu with an “Other” option, but selecting it merely triggers a “Coming Soon” error message. It’s called a beta for a reason, folks.

Perhaps most disappointingly, however, browsing the available content reveals an identical offering to that which is already offered on the network’s Comcast “On Demand” channel, relegating the service at present to little more than an online convenience. Still, arriving at the handsome price of free, "HBO GO" will likely prove a welcome addition for those who already pay the cable premium, and will now be able to stream full screen, high-definition video from the comfort of (up to three) internet-ready PCs or laptops.

Registration information is available at hbogo.com, and current highlights on the service include cable premieres of “He’s Just Not That Into You” and “Body of Lies,” alongside the latest batch of “Curb Your Enthusiasm” episodes and the first season of the bafflingly popular “True Blood.”

Frank Miller Talks "300" Follow-Up

No one does hyper-masculine melodrama like Zack Snyder, and it looks like the celebrated director behind fanboy favorites “300” and “Watchmen” may be partnering with “Sin City” scribe Frank Miller once again to deliver more stupefying Spartan superfluity.

According to an article at cinematical, Miller spoke recently with the Los Angeles Times about the project, tentatively titled “Xerxes” after the notorious Persian king and antagonist of the first film. Miller reveals his follow-up will be a prequel, set roughly ten years before the Battle of Thermopylae, on which “300” was loosely (loosely) based.

So what historic skirmish sets the stage for “Xerxes?” “It’s the battle of Marathon through my lens,” Miller says. “I’ve finished the plot and I’m getting started on the artwork.”

Thematically, Marathon makes for a fitting prequel to “300,” though some may contest that the context of the fight, which again sees the Greek army attempting to thwart a seemingly insurmountable Persian invasion, is too redundant to support an additional feature-length film. Legendary Pictures, on the other hand, might direct you to their gross revenue figures for the first.

Honestly, one bout of Miller and Snyder’s self-important shouting competition was more than enough for me, but if the prospect of more derivative, green-screen fight sequences featuring hundreds of men with sprayed-on abs appeals to you, by all means begin getting pumped.

"Up in the Air" Review

The problem with films hyped as award vehicles is that you watch them differently. I didn't have the opportunity to see Jason Reitman's "Up in the Air" on the festival circuit, so my interpretation comes pre-masticated by critics who heralded it as the film to beat come Oscar season. Those accounts peeled back the layers of genuine surprise I might have felt in the theater, warping the profound into the expected, and left me with the pit. Forgive me if I'm playing catch-up.

It's not that Reitman's third film, following "Thank You for Smoking" and "Juno," is outright disappointing. On the contrary, "Up in the Air" has vivid characters, fine performances, and a timely, good-humored recession-oriented story. In short, I agree with most of the praise the film has garnered, so why do I have this inclination to shrug it off as merely 'good?' I think because it simply failed to surprise me. So in the interest of salvaging the opinions of future viewers, I intend to part with as few hard details as can be spared in the following paragraphs. I hope for this analysis to be the perfect mediation between your expectations and what is often a frank and charming, if formulaic, comedy.

The pieces are all in place. You know what to expect from a George Clooney performance, and with "The Men Who Stare at Goats" and "Fantastic Mr. Fox" still playing theatrically, you needn't look far if not. He plays Ryan Bingham, a jet-setting corporate lay-off guru whose cherished lifestyle is threatened when an overeager young businesswoman (Anna Kendrick) devises a revolutionary video-conferencing system that will allow Bingham to work from the last place he would ever want to--home. The screenplay presents a straightforward, nearly transparent story, which is fortunately vitalized by the likes of Clooney and his love interest (Vera Farmiga), under the amiable sway of Reitman's direction. The narrative rigidity jiggers with the pacing later on the film, however, with false endings and climaxes that betray the structure of the rest of it. But unlike the Coens' "A Serious Man," which easily shoulders a jackknife narrative that keeps its audience entertained and guessing, "Up in the Air" doesn't feel like a deliberate build, it feels, maybe appropriately, lost.

Regardless, to harp only on its structural shortcomings is to ignore the film's most important aspect: its timeliness. As a cinematic snapshot of 2009, nothing else really comes close, and that's a big reason why it's a front-runner on so many best-of lists, my own (probably) included. What does it mean to lose your job? What does it mean when the guy who told you that you lost your job might lose his job? These are the themes scratching below the surface of "Up in the Air," but which unfortunately never penetrate in any immediately meaningful way. Rather, they render the film a shorthand for our recession, our attitudes, and our relationships now.

Ironically, it gets to a point where I have to agree that this is the film to beat come oscar season. I'd like to say that slathering it with superlatives on the merits of cultural relevance alone would be like giving "Crash" an Oscar just for addressing racism. But oh, wait.

It isn't just social context that makes "Up in the Air" look like a best picture to-be. Like 2007's "No Country for Old Men," or 2008's "Slumdog Millionaire," Oscar will love Jason Reitman's latest because it's a safe, inoffensive choice. I'm gonna go ahead and call it. It's not as violent as "Inglourious Basterds" or as contentedly anti-commercial as "A Serious Man," and though I would not be so pretentious as to suggest any of the above winners are unworthy of consideration in a discussion of great film (except "Crash"), the important, polarizing masterpieces that challenge convention are rarely, if ever, afforded cinema's highest honor. It's the broad strokes of vague emotion and unanimous praise, however reserved, that means pay dirt.

"Up in the Air" is a perfectly fine film, well above average, smartly cast, and consistently enjoyable. It never sticks more than a trembling finger outside of the box, but does well with an established formula in painting a postcard of America at its least assured.

I wouldn't call it a great film, but it's a significant one, and one I fully expect to hear read aloud this coming March 7th. But then again, it has one last chance to surprise me.

4/5

"Nine," "Inglourious Basterds" Lead 2009 Critic's Choice Nominees

Award season is once again in full swing and the best-of lists are coming out of the woodwork to honor 2009’s finest filmic achievements. The BFCA (Broadcast Film Critics Association) has recently unfurled their picks for the 15th annual Critic's Choice Movie Awards, with Quentin Tarantino’s “Inglourious Basterds” and Rob Marshall’s “Nine” leading the pack, tied at a record ten nominations each. Both films received a nod for best picture, best cinematography, best art direction, best editing, and best acting ensemble, among others.

Rounding out the CCMA best picture category were “Avatar,” “An Education,” “The Hurt Locker,” “Invictus,” “Precious,” “A Serious Man,” “Up,” and “Up in the Air.” A complete list of categories and nominees can be found here.

Not to be outdone, the Associated Press and Time magazine’s Richard Corliss have also made their choices for best picture known. Via Ain’t it Cool:

David Germaine (AP)
The Hurt Locker
Precious
The White Ribbon
Bad Lieutenant: Port of Call New Orleans
Up
An Education
(500) Days of Summer
Passing Strange
Anvil: The Story of Anvil
The Damned United

Christy Lemire (AP)
Moon
An Education
The Hurt Locker
Up
District 9
A Serious Man
Fantastic Mr. Fox
Sugar
Passing Strange
Drag Me to Hell

Richard Corliss (Time)
The Princess and the Frog
Up
Fantastic Mr. Fox
The Hurt Locker
Up in the Air
The White Ribbon
A Single Man
Of Time and the City
District 9
Thirst

Obviously there are quite a few crossover picks, though conspicuously none of the stand-alone critics shared the BFCA’s enthusiasm for “Basterds” or “Nine.” In fact, the only other unanimous picks were Pixar’s “Up,” and Kathryn Bigelow’s “The Hurt Locker.”

I’m frankly surprised by the amount of attention both of those films are receiving, as I consider “Up” one of Pixar’s less successful animated features, and “The Hurt Locker,” a topical but ultimately insubstantial action film. I am glad to see the Coen brothers’ “A Serious Man” mentioned by Lemire, among the likes of less traditional genre picks like “Moon” and “Drag Me to Hell.”

So what do you think? Are the critical picks justified? Are “Inglourious Basterds” and “Nine” the films to remember the end of the decade by? Is social relevance enough to warrant the excessive praise for “Hurt Locker?” Glaring omissions?

There’s no pleasing everyone, but awards season is our opportunity to hash out opinion at our most apologetically pretentious. Have at it.