Movie 176: Avatar

Avatar (2009) by James Cameron
starring Sam Worthngton, Zoe Saldana and Sigourney Weaver

In a nutshell: A truly groundbreaking visual experience whose decent accompanying story, I fear, will not hold up upon closer inspection

Quick synopsis: Jake Sully, a paraplegic ex-marine fills his late brother's spot in the Avatar Program, which allows humans to control alien bodies to interact with natives on a foreign planet on which humans cannot survive but whose resources they still hope to exploit

Content: Here it is...the review 10 years in the making. A this point in time there is nothing else out there quite like Avatar, and its originality goes a long way toward covering up its shortcomings. First of all, the visuals are such a giant step forward that everyone should see it for that reason alone. See it in 3D imax for the full effect. Never have I seen CG and live action so seamlessly mixed together, so that you honestly forget that 95% of the things on screen aren't really there. Intense. I am just afraid of the effect Avatar's quality will have on my enjoyment of slightly older films like Lord of the Rings whose seams will suddenly be much more obvious. Gollum (who was a great CG achievement in 2001) will probably stick out like a sore thumb. Avatar's CG also accomplished one thing that has proved to be an elusive prize through the years for computer animators: creating very expressive faces on non-humans that can convey a wide range of emotions and making each of the Na'vi (the race of blue aliens) unique, just as humans are.

The lush jungle world in which the story takes place is nothing short of magical. Cameron hired scientists of all types to ensure that the flora and fauna of Pandora (the alien planet on which the film takes place) is fantastic but still believable. It is very fun to explore the jungle for the first time along with Sam Worthington.

The story is decent. The dialogue is merely ok. It doesn't get in the way of the effects, but I don't think it will hold up that well to repeated viewings. Star Wars, it is not. I liked the concept of controlling a body remotely and how they handled the people popping in and out of their avatars. I even liked their take on the somewhat generic story of the rebel sympathizer. I was compelled by Sully's conflict, unlike some critics. I also liked the Na'vi characters that we spend time with and the big bad Colonel. But some of the other important supporting characters came up way short. Great peripheral characters can mean the difference between a good movie and a classic, and Avatar's weren't good enough to get the movie to the next level. Sigourney Weaver's scientist, Grace, teetered on the edge of being one-dimensional much of the time, and the Michelle Rodriguez (the pilot) and Joel David Moore (the other guy in the avatar program) characters were pathetic. They were cliches, through and through. And what's worse, we get very little character development for these people even though their attitudes towards our hero, Sully, change drastically. We are just kind of expected to accept the changes at face value, without being given any of their motivations. Moore even succeeded at making me downright uncomfortable when he lets out a huge and incredibly fake-sounding "YES!!!!" accompanied by a Tiger-esque fist pump when he find out they are going to the floating mountains.

Michelle Rodriguez might have been worse though. She takes a liking to cheesy one-liners to punctuate scenes which she delivers without even a hint of irony. But we have no idea what motivates her. I can only assuming that some of her important scenes were cut out because Cameron can't be that inept.

Avatar is and always will be considered a milestone, but I predict that it will be upstaged when another movie uses the same technology but compliments it with an equally strong screenplay. Avatar will be remembered as the movie that introduced a new medium, but another film will have perfected it. Avatar 2? I certainly wouldn't rule it out. Especially if Mr. Cameron keeps his ego in check and enlists the help of more talented screenwriters to give the sequel some more complex characters than the original.

Rolling rankings:
1. Inglourious Basterds (#168)
2. Where The Wild Things Are (#169)
3. Jackie Brown (#173)
4. Avatar (#176)
5. Adventureland (#170)
6. Anvil! The Story of Anvil (#172)
7. Duplicity (#167)
8. Julie and Julia (#175)
9. Angels & Demons (#174)
10. The American Nightmare (#171)

Movie 175: Julie and Julia

Julie and Julia (2009) by Nora Ephron
starring Amy Adams and Meryl Streep



In a nutshell: A pleasant, non-offensive, lightweight piece of entertainment along the lines of a movie that shares 2 cast members, The Devil Wears Prada

Quick synopsis: Two stories: Julia Child finds her calling in life in Paris in the '50's; Julie Powell finds her inspiration as a writer by attempting to cook each one of the 500+ recipes in Julia Child's famous cookbook in a year.

Content: It is hard to saying anything either very good or very bad about Julie & Julia. It's a pleasant story filled with generally good people, some cool locations and great looking food. No one suffers any serious hardships, and when minor ones pop up, they are quickly remedied. There are no annoying performances, obnoxious gimmicks or dastardly villains. Just another great performance by Meryl Streep as the happy-go-lucky, outgoing titular character who doesn't know how to take no for an answer and a parallel story about a woman searching for a bit of inspiration in her life, which she finds in Julia Child. As I mentioned earlier, it's style reminded a lot of another movie with Streep and Stanley Tucci, The Devil Wears Prada. Both are average stories complimented by above average performances and direction that never gets in the way. Stakes are never too high. If ever in search of a chick flick, Julie and Julia is a much more pleasant watch than the horrible romantic comedies that Hollywood has been pumping out.

Rolling rankings:
1. Inglourious Basterds (#168)
2. Where The Wild Things Are (#169)
3. Jackie Brown (#173)
4. Adventureland (#170)
5. Anvil! The Story of Anvil (#172)
6. Duplicity (#167)
7. Into the Wild (#166)
8. Julie and Julia (#175)
9. Angels & Demons (#174)
10. The American Nightmare (#171)

New Year...New Tunes

Just wanted to squeeze in a few new tunes before review #175, which will be........Avatar!

Grizzly Bear - Two Weeks

I was vaguely familiar with this band when I saw this song turn up on a "Top 10 Best Songs of 2009" list...then another...and another. So, I had to hear what the fuss was about. The song features gorgeous harmonies over lilting piano and lurches along in a way that reminds me of Wolf Parade or maybe Modest Mouse mixed with the Beach Boys during their "Good Vibrations" era. Check it out below.



Animal Collective - Brother Sport

Along similar lines is the music of Animal Collective, one of the most original bands of the past decade. They have been very active recently releasing either an LP or an EP every year for the past 5 years or so. "Brother Sport" is my favorite song off their most recent full album, Merriweather Post Pavilion. It's rhythmic nature represents the most accessible side of Animal Collective's catalog, and a great jumping off point for exploring their sound. If you like "Brother Sport", there plenty more where that came from, but proceed with caution because some of the band's music is so experimental that it will only appeal to a very small audience.



Okkervil River - Our Life Is Not a Movie or Maybe

Okkervil River is a much more straightforward rock band than either of the previously referenced bands. The lead singer's yelps are slightly reminiscent of The Cure's Robert Smith, but with a stronger rhythm section backing him.

Movie 174: Angels & Demons

Angels & Demons (2009) by Ron Howard
starring Tom Hanks & Ewan McGregor



In a nutshell: Dan Brown's style of information-heavy fiction doesn't translate well to the screen. Too much time has to be spent dropping obscure names with mildly adequate explanations and the characters barely get developed as a result.

Quick synopsis: Before he tracked down the long lost bloodline of Christ, symbologist Robert Langdon helps the Catholic church get to the bottom of a plot organized by a long-hidden threat, aiming to bring it to its knees.

Content: I have to believe that with Dan Brown's mega-best-selling easy-reading books as source material, there were good movies to be made from The Da Vinci Code and Angels & Demons, but Ron Howard's films were not the great films that might have been. They are very average movies with very questionable casting that move far too fast for the twists and turns to have any impact.

During the peak of the Da Vinci Code's popularity, I felt no shame in enjoying Dan Brown's contributions to literature. But I have witnessed a small backlash against Mr. Brown when people began to realize that he writes at a 6th grade level and repeatedly uses a certain cheap trick to create suspense - 2 page chapters with a cliffhanger at the end of each one. Nevertheless, these facts have not turned me against Brown's books, but have merely shifted them into the "guilty pleasures" section of my library (which incidentally just added Brown's new book, The Lost Symbol).

But the odd thing about Brown's Robert Langdon series (Da Vinci Code, Angel & Demons, Lost Symbol) is that while Langdon is the lead and the novels are undoubtedly interesting, Langdon himself is not interesting. He mostly serves as the source of the obscure facts required to move the story forward. He hardly even has a discernible personality. And when the character was written for the screen, there was no time to extrapolate on the little basis given by the books because of the minutes devoted to necessary information, twists and turns required to keep the story intact.

Perhaps certain actors could have taken character development upon themselves in interpreting Langdon, but Tom Hanks doesn't pull it off. At least he got rid of his laughable hairdo from The Da Vinci Code, but he is equally as bland. Ewan McGregor plays a pivotal character, but I think he is an overrated actor. I don't remember liking him in anything except Trainspotting through the years. I generally like Stellan Skarsgard (of Good Will Hunting fame), who plays a commander in the Swiss Guard, but I am slowly realizing that his campy appearances have turned into a sort of novelty for me. I get excited in a way only comparable to the momentary excitement I feel when Christopher McDonald (the immortal Shooter McGavin) inevitably pops up in what seems like every B movie. The female lead (I don't even know who she was) was completely nondescript.

Brown slick little cliffhanger trick does not translate to the screen either. A film that jumped around as much as his books, would probably have been worse than Ron Howard's finished products.

It is possible for films that fly through at a breakneck pace to work. See Snatch for verification. The characters in that movie are even fairly well developed. And then there is one other film that serves as concrete evidence that Angels & Demons (and Da Vinci Code) could have been done better - National Treasure - because it is the exact same type of adventure plot. So what is it that makes National Treasure immensely more enjoyable than either Brown adaptation? The single characteristic that jumps out is HUMOR. Angels & Demons was COMPLETELY devoid of even a hint of humor. But again, there were probably no spare minutes in the film's already lengthy run time for that. National Treasure was also not burdened by any source material and was created specifically for the screen. Adaptations are always trickier and Howard's attempts at adapting Brown haven't clicked, for whatever reason.

I don't mean to give the impression that Angels & Demons is a bad movie - it is not. It is worth watching once and is not offensive in any way, but it's not memorable or rewatchable. When dealing with such far-fetched stories supposedly set in present-day reality, a little humor makes it much easier to suspend disbelief, perhaps because the characters seem to be in on the joke as well. I think that to make Brown's books into GOOD movies, more ADAPTING was necessary, and less faithfulness to the original material.

Rolling rankings:
1. Inglourious Basterds (#168)
2. Where The Wild Things Are (#169)
3. Jackie Brown (#173)
4. Adventureland (#170)
5. Anvil! The Story of Anvil (#172)
6. Duplicity (#167)
7. Battle Royale (#165)
8. Into the Wild (#166)
9. Angels & Demons (#174)
10. The American Nightmare (#171)