Mass Effect…
Avatar…
Avatar is the latest thrill ride from director James Cameron, who has pretty much just cemented himself as king of the box office. Thrill ride is certainly the best phrase to use when describing Avatar. It certainly has no equal in terms of computer effects. However as great as all that is, with the exception of 3D, Avatar isn’t breaking new ground. CG heavy movies have been around for a while, it is certainly taken to a different level here but the wow factor is definitely diminished. Films like Final Fantasy, Lord of the Rings, Star Wars (the latter three…or is that earlier three…), and many more have broken the seal on enveloping the viewing in a cg world. Yes it is done better, but 300 million dollars and several years of technological advances another film could have done something as impressive. But the cg is not the reason to see this film.
3D is the driving force behind seeing this film; it’s the meat and potatoes to the cg’s sauce. Shot specifically for 3D, it is the best application of 3D to date. Most of the previous films that sported 3D treated it as a gimmick, with shit flying at the screen. Avatar takes a much more subtle approach. Cameron utilizes 3D to add depth to each screen, with multiple layers showing different characters and objects in the fore & background separately. The end result is a strange hybrid between a stage performance and film. Something very cool the first time you see it.
With all that said, the effect started to wear off for me about halfway through the film. If I thought about it I could see the 3D, but when I would lose myself in the film I would start to barely notice the added dimension. I’m not exactly sure why. I’ve talked to several other people who saw the film, and none of them experienced the same thing. Maybe it was just me. You would normally think not noticing something and being completely engrossed by it would be a good thing, but then why was I at the 3D showing? Couldn’t I have saved myself seven dollars and saw the 2D showing?
Was it really just me? To me the most impressive 3D was in the beginning of the film when the majority of the scenery revolved around the Human army base with familarish sights and sounds. And when the effect sort of wore off the majority of the scenery revolved around the Smurf jungle. Was it the length of time? Was it the fact that the Smurf jungle was filled with more complex objects than simple military armaments? I don’t know; part of me would like to see the film in 2D to see if I feel less engaged. But that probably won’t happen until the Blu-ray.
This film is 3D, but it is still a film, and as a film it must succeed by the standards that we hold all films to: Story, Characters, Dialogue, etc… Cameron keeps the plot light and simple, maybe too light; humans greedy and evil, the natives good and pure. It really felt like he thought up the visuals first and then tailored a story to fit around it. The main character, Jake Sully, is certainly the most sympathetic of the entire cast, the guy is fricking paralyze, how can he not be sympathetic? It’s not like there are any other characters that one can side. Almost all of them are stereotypes, filling their role with cookie cutter magic. You like the characters you are supposed to like, and hate the ones that you are supposed to hate. Everything is laid out at the start and eventually everyone has their moments to fill their roles.
Avatar’s strengths are its visuals; weakness is its story. Like a gorgeous model, they look great from the outside, but start talking to them and you find that there is very little running on the inside. Much as been said about the fact that it’s a mega reimaging of Pocahontas and you can certainly draw some major similarities between the two. But whatever, original ideas are so rare in today’s world. The plot provides enough subtext to support the visuals, which is a shame because it puts Avatar into the “Popcorn” class of film, something that feels a little dirty considering the jump forward it takes in filmmaking. How big of a jump? We will see with time because I’m not completely sold on 3D.
An Education…
The coming of age tale of a young girl in 1961 England, Jenny is 16 with tastes of a women twice her age. She yearns for a more cultured life. Top of her class, she does everything she can to fulfill her parents dreams of attending Oxford. But will Oxford give her everything that she wants in life? A life filled with great food, art, travel, and substance. That is the path that Jenny is set on until she meets, David, a mysterious older man. He offers her everything that she could possibly want and a life that she had only dreamed about. But where does the money come from? And what are this guy’s true motives for a girl still in her teens?
An Education is one of the better coming of age stories that I have seen in recent years, but it’s not without its problems. Particularly it’s ending. I will attempt to discuss my issues without disclosing too many spoilers. While Jenny is the focus of the story, the much more interesting character is David. And yet the questions that David’s character raises never get answered.
Why did he go after a 16 year old girl? Did he just like them young? Or did he like being the teacher and mentor, showing them the world and grooming them for their place in it. Or was the age irrelevant and it was because Jenny, while 16, was much more cultured and sophisticated than most other woman; her personality was the flame that drew David, not her virginity.
Ultimately everything comes to a head with David and things seem to get wrapped up way to conveniently for me. Granted it’s not like this is the most complicated situation in the world, just a love affair between a girl and a man, so once everything pans out in the end perhaps I’m being overly critical of the fact that all the issues are resolved in a nice little montage that I think takes place over the course of a year. Perhaps because I invested so much of my time in the film that I feel would like I’m warranted for more of an epilogue with more consequence for the actions taken. But I didn’t get that, so I left unfulfilled.
Perhaps others won’t have that big of an issue with the ending and how things played out, but it gnaws at me. Which is a shame because the first 75% of the film of truly excellent. The performances are great and you’re full engaged for the entire time. But it all comes to a blinding screeching halt at the end. And that knocks the film down several notches for me. Wait for it on Blu-ray and give it a whirl then.
**
Michael Jackson’s This Is It…
I don’t know how to approach this film. Is it a concert film? Or is it a documentary? Going into it I thought it was going to be a combination of both. But having seeing it it’s neither. While it’s closer to a concert film, it’s really just a propaganda piece, meant to leave people with a positive image of Jackson as the last thing people will see.
Why it’s not a documentary?
Outside of a few back stage moments most of This Is It consists of rehearsal performances for the upcoming concert tour. Any even in those back stage moments very little is revealed about Jackson. The main takeaways are that he is a perfectionist who cares about the fan experience. Do we really need a feature length film to tell us that?
No, this plays like a straight up propaganda piece. This Is It is directed by Kenny Ortega, but it might as well have been Kenny Ortega and the Michael Jackson legal team. Nothing in this film talks about any of the more controversial areas of Jackson’s life. Outside of the opening scroll, you would never even know that Jackson died. We see a very lucid Jackson working diligently to make a concert for his fans and absolutely by the crew. Not a Jackson who was chronically late to court, or showed up in pajamas, or was addicted to massive amounts of prescription drugs and boy genitalia (those last two are alleged, however I believe them wholeheartedly).
Perhaps the most unintentional revealing point is the manner in which director Kenny Ortega talks and deals with Jackson, treating him like a special needs case. Agreeing with everything he says, talking very patiently, calling Jackson delicate would be an understatement. While that is probably no different than how any director talks to mega a-list talent, it just feels more adolescent with Jackson. I look forward to the day when an in-depth (and most likely unauthorized) biography of Jackson comes out that delves into the psyche that is Michael Jackson.
Why it’s not a concert film?
Technically it is one, but all the footage is from rehearsals. Most of Jackson’s performances are subpar, with him not giving it 100%, which is understandable because he wanted to save himself for the actual concert goers paying tons of money.
Considering the circumstances there was not a whole lot that the filmmakers could have done. Maybe dub over the vocals to make it sound more like the records? But that would take away from the genuine factor. Although I swear they dubbed over Thriller. During the performance you almost never saw a good shot of Jackson’s mouth. A full out documentary utilizing the back stage footage from This Is It with Jackson’s classic performances cut in-between would have been my approach.
A lot of marketing hype has tried to deem this as the greatest concert film of all time. No it’s not; perhaps it will be the highest grossing concert film of all time. But to me the greatest concert film of all time would be of an actual concert.
This Is It is exactly what it looks like on the surface: The Jackson family estate attempt to cash in on and preserve the legacy of the late King of Pop.
