Alice in Wonderland - Alice (Mia Wasikowska), now 20 years old, is being forced into an arranged marriage and decides to escape again to Wonderland. She finds her old band of weird misfit characters, The Hatter (Johnny Depp), The Cheshire Cat (voiced by Stephen Fry), The Caterpillar (voiced by Alan Rickman), who all seem to know each other this time around. Team Alice must take on the Red Queen (Helena Bonham Carter) and it is up to Alice to slay the mighty Jabberwocky.
Of all the good directors to lose their touch, Burton's descent is probably the most interesting. Don't get me wrong, I love Beetlejuice, Edward Scissorhands, Ed Wood, Big Fish, and Sleepy Hollow very much, but Burton has undeniably lost his touch over the last few years. A man always attracted to images, he has always enjoyed the imagery of horror but not necessarily the pathos behind it. Motivations and details tend to elude Burton's characters and their worlds in his works. Burton has gotten frankly lazy with his casting over the years. Now, in Burton's seventh film with Johnny Depp and his most eye popping yet conventional film yet, it is clear that Burton is comfortable in just letting the eye-popping imagery and Danny Elfman's music do the dramatic work for him. If I found parts of Sweeney Todd boring and emotionally vapid, it had nothing on large chunks of Wonderland. There is not an ounce of drama to be found anywhere. Now I ask why would a man who has admitted to not being familiar with fairy tales or good scripts, desire to do Alice in Wonderland?
If one had large chunks of time to spare, they could go over what a weird mistake it was to put Alice, whose original adventures ARE the archetype for the woman's adventure, squarely in an archetypal male's adventure of achieving their destiny by slaying a dragon. I mean really, what was the point of rebooting Alice just to turn it into Narnia? This is not entirely Burton's fault. Linda Woolverton, who wrote The Lion King, is also behind this.
If there is one place where schmaltz, logic, conventionality, epic battles and foretold prophecies/destinies, should be forbidden it's Wonderland. Gone are the political satire, the wackiness and the randomness of Wonderland. Mr. Burton, good lord but what were you thinking? Mia Wasikowska is completely lacking in charisma. I liked some of the things Depp tried to do with Mad Hatter, even if a random Scottish accent appears sometimes and a horrendously inappropriate hip-hop routine comes out of freaking nowhere at the end. Ironically, trying to give the Hatter depth was a huge mistake. Stephen Fry is pitch perfect as the Cheshire Cat. Alan Rickman's voice is similarly great for the Caterpillar. Helena Bonham Carter raises the level some with a good performance as the The Red Queen. Anne Hathaway looks vacant and sashays around as the White Queen. It's bearable, but rather boring, and that's sad.
The film is beautiful, and Burton fans will be satisfied. It is, I repeat, a shallow conventional Wonderland. Alice in Wonderland gets a C-.
Saturday, March 6, 2010
Saturday, February 6, 2010
Edge of Darkness review
Hi all! Whether all means many or few I cannot tell. I will hazard a guess at the latter for I do not believe anyone has subscribed to my blog yet. I can't blame them. I haven't updated in over a month. And with good reason. January typically sucks where movies are concerned. Also I've been caught up in a dozen other things, none of which will interest you if you come seeking movie reviews. So I bring my first review of the year Edge of Darkness, and I might as well finish up by giving my Oscar predictions for 2009.
Edge of Darkness - Mel Gibson's first film as the lead in almost decade has him as Boston policemen Thomas Craven who is seeking revenge for crimes against his daughter. His harrowing quest for justice gets Craven deep in bureaucratic affairs and intrigue aplomb. I went into the film knowing almost nothing about it, and would likewise like to keep you viewers in the dark, or on the edge of it (tee hee!) as well. Trust me, you'll have more fun the less you know.
It's a nice reminder of why Mel Gibson used to garner such attention. Talented as he is behind the camera, he is far more enjoyable on camera. Unlike Harrison Ford and Liam Neeson, Mel Gibson actually gives credibility to an old man kicking a fair amount of ass simply because he has nothing left. As a man tortured by the deception and cruelty unfolding around him, Mel gives the film vitality. The same can be said for director Martin Campbell, action director extraordinaire. They project the film a notch above similar fare. Danny Huston and Ray Winstone give good performances to fairly generic characters: a corrupt businessman and a Deepthroat style character.
The film is tight and occasionally surprising. And by surprising, I don't mean as to whether a character is going to die or not, but how they are going to die. The plot is comprehensive if a little far-fetched given the surroundings and motivations. It too elevates the film above the likes of a Steven Seagal film.The action is tight and well choreographed. I loved watching Mel Gibson enact revenge in Lethal Weapon. I loved it in Braveheart. I enjoyed it here as well. His brand of crazy vengeance is just one of the simple things you treasure in life. It's a film about a simple man who demands honesty from a frequently morally bankrupt world that is driven by greed. I think that's why we have so many films in which good is portrayed as winning in the end. Not because it's true to life, but it's the truth that we desire to see.
Sidenote: This film was made largely in my home of Western Massachussetts. I am reminded of how I felt during my viewing of "In Bruges" in which a quaint countryside town is given a wildly-inappropriate-given-its-settings gangster story. This alternate Massachussetts is like if Sin City were mixed with Dr. No's nuclear scheme. Sounds like a fun place. Wish I lived there.
A solid entertaining film that delivers in February no less. Edge of Darkness gets a B.
Now, Oscar predictions. The Oscar folk have been trying to cloud my judgement by upping the stakes from 5 to 10 nominees for best picture. It's difficult, as I have not seen 6 of the films, but that won't stop cynical old me. I'm betting most of the Oscar ballot casters haven't seen more than 4 films on the list either.
Best Picture: Avatar.
Why: 2 Billion Fuck you. That's why. Was it a great film? No. Was it a very good film that could have used a little more depth? Yes. Was it a beautiful film that the world over has seen? Twice? Yes. "Precious" could win, but it's more likely that actress will win in her respective category. "District 9" was great, but it's too nerdy, and "Avatar" is far more pedestrian sci-fi. Not enough people have seen "The Hurt Locker", "A Serious Man", "The Blind Side" or "An Education". Remember folks, Oscar's about publicity. They did themselves no favors back in 06 when they awarded "Crash" Best Film. "Up in the Air" was great but depressing to many, and "Up" will win Best Animated Film. "Inglurious Basterds" was widely liked, but ravaging history just to imagine-sock Hitler and all the Nazis on the jaw that escaped unscathed does not Best Film make.
Best Actor: George Clooney
Why: Hmmm....tricky. I haven't seen all of these films. Clooney and Freeman have both won awards in the past. A Single Man is only up for this one Oscar. Invictus is really more about a soccer match than Nelson Mandela. I'm going to bring it down between Jeff Bridges and George Clooney. I would like for Jeff Bridges to win an award one of these days, as he's done many great unappreciate things. I'm going to go out on the first of many limbs and say that The Hurt Locker is going to be the Benjamin Button this year. i.e. the film that is respected but not liked enough to garner anything beyond nominations. Up in the Air was probably Clooney's best film, and a very relevant one given unemployment rising.
Best Actress: Gabourey Sidibe
Again tricky. I've only seen Julie and Julia. Meryl was great, but she's always great. Oscars aren't about consistent greatness, which people find not awesome but boring for some reason, but momentary new greatness. That's how Jennifer Hudson got more Oscars than you ever will. I'll wait to let you get some Aloe Vera for that burn. Okay you're back. Anywho, Helen Mirren is great, but no one has seen The Last Station. This was really down to hype between Bullock and Precious. I will be damned if the world has become so cruel that Sandra Bullock wins an Oscar after two decades of playing the same persona. Nay, that she wins an Oscar the same year that she is nominated for a Razzie. Therefore I vote for the other overhyped film I have not seen, Precious. Hey it worked last year when I said I would be damned if Marisa Tomei took a SECOND Oscar. Yes I take full credit for that happening. And won my local Oscar ballot contest through pure cynicism. Moving on...
Best Supporting Actor: Matt Damon
This is a tricky year. Possibly Matt Damon. He turned in what i hear are two very good performances, which always raises the odds. Christopher Plummer is getting on in years, and I would like to see him get recognition. Stanley Tucci is a very good actor as well. However, Matt Damon is the most high profile of all of these men, and we need some celebs in the house to win!
Best Supporting Actress: Mo' Nique
Best Director: James Cameron
Best Adapted Screenplay: Up in the Air
Best Original Screenplay: A Serious Man
Best Cinematography: Avatar
Best Foreign Film: Das wiesse Band
Best Animated Film: Up
Possibly the only easy choice in the lot.
There ya go! Not easy choices, and it took an hour of wild guessing to arrive there. Enjoy!
Edge of Darkness - Mel Gibson's first film as the lead in almost decade has him as Boston policemen Thomas Craven who is seeking revenge for crimes against his daughter. His harrowing quest for justice gets Craven deep in bureaucratic affairs and intrigue aplomb. I went into the film knowing almost nothing about it, and would likewise like to keep you viewers in the dark, or on the edge of it (tee hee!) as well. Trust me, you'll have more fun the less you know.
It's a nice reminder of why Mel Gibson used to garner such attention. Talented as he is behind the camera, he is far more enjoyable on camera. Unlike Harrison Ford and Liam Neeson, Mel Gibson actually gives credibility to an old man kicking a fair amount of ass simply because he has nothing left. As a man tortured by the deception and cruelty unfolding around him, Mel gives the film vitality. The same can be said for director Martin Campbell, action director extraordinaire. They project the film a notch above similar fare. Danny Huston and Ray Winstone give good performances to fairly generic characters: a corrupt businessman and a Deepthroat style character.
The film is tight and occasionally surprising. And by surprising, I don't mean as to whether a character is going to die or not, but how they are going to die. The plot is comprehensive if a little far-fetched given the surroundings and motivations. It too elevates the film above the likes of a Steven Seagal film.The action is tight and well choreographed. I loved watching Mel Gibson enact revenge in Lethal Weapon. I loved it in Braveheart. I enjoyed it here as well. His brand of crazy vengeance is just one of the simple things you treasure in life. It's a film about a simple man who demands honesty from a frequently morally bankrupt world that is driven by greed. I think that's why we have so many films in which good is portrayed as winning in the end. Not because it's true to life, but it's the truth that we desire to see.
Sidenote: This film was made largely in my home of Western Massachussetts. I am reminded of how I felt during my viewing of "In Bruges" in which a quaint countryside town is given a wildly-inappropriate-given-its-settings gangster story. This alternate Massachussetts is like if Sin City were mixed with Dr. No's nuclear scheme. Sounds like a fun place. Wish I lived there.
A solid entertaining film that delivers in February no less. Edge of Darkness gets a B.
Now, Oscar predictions. The Oscar folk have been trying to cloud my judgement by upping the stakes from 5 to 10 nominees for best picture. It's difficult, as I have not seen 6 of the films, but that won't stop cynical old me. I'm betting most of the Oscar ballot casters haven't seen more than 4 films on the list either.
Best Picture: Avatar.
Why: 2 Billion Fuck you. That's why. Was it a great film? No. Was it a very good film that could have used a little more depth? Yes. Was it a beautiful film that the world over has seen? Twice? Yes. "Precious" could win, but it's more likely that actress will win in her respective category. "District 9" was great, but it's too nerdy, and "Avatar" is far more pedestrian sci-fi. Not enough people have seen "The Hurt Locker", "A Serious Man", "The Blind Side" or "An Education". Remember folks, Oscar's about publicity. They did themselves no favors back in 06 when they awarded "Crash" Best Film. "Up in the Air" was great but depressing to many, and "Up" will win Best Animated Film. "Inglurious Basterds" was widely liked, but ravaging history just to imagine-sock Hitler and all the Nazis on the jaw that escaped unscathed does not Best Film make.
Best Actor: George Clooney
Why: Hmmm....tricky. I haven't seen all of these films. Clooney and Freeman have both won awards in the past. A Single Man is only up for this one Oscar. Invictus is really more about a soccer match than Nelson Mandela. I'm going to bring it down between Jeff Bridges and George Clooney. I would like for Jeff Bridges to win an award one of these days, as he's done many great unappreciate things. I'm going to go out on the first of many limbs and say that The Hurt Locker is going to be the Benjamin Button this year. i.e. the film that is respected but not liked enough to garner anything beyond nominations. Up in the Air was probably Clooney's best film, and a very relevant one given unemployment rising.
Best Actress: Gabourey Sidibe
Again tricky. I've only seen Julie and Julia. Meryl was great, but she's always great. Oscars aren't about consistent greatness, which people find not awesome but boring for some reason, but momentary new greatness. That's how Jennifer Hudson got more Oscars than you ever will. I'll wait to let you get some Aloe Vera for that burn. Okay you're back. Anywho, Helen Mirren is great, but no one has seen The Last Station. This was really down to hype between Bullock and Precious. I will be damned if the world has become so cruel that Sandra Bullock wins an Oscar after two decades of playing the same persona. Nay, that she wins an Oscar the same year that she is nominated for a Razzie. Therefore I vote for the other overhyped film I have not seen, Precious. Hey it worked last year when I said I would be damned if Marisa Tomei took a SECOND Oscar. Yes I take full credit for that happening. And won my local Oscar ballot contest through pure cynicism. Moving on...
Best Supporting Actor: Matt Damon
This is a tricky year. Possibly Matt Damon. He turned in what i hear are two very good performances, which always raises the odds. Christopher Plummer is getting on in years, and I would like to see him get recognition. Stanley Tucci is a very good actor as well. However, Matt Damon is the most high profile of all of these men, and we need some celebs in the house to win!
Best Supporting Actress: Mo' Nique
Best Director: James Cameron
Best Adapted Screenplay: Up in the Air
Best Original Screenplay: A Serious Man
Best Cinematography: Avatar
Best Foreign Film: Das wiesse Band
Best Animated Film: Up
Possibly the only easy choice in the lot.
There ya go! Not easy choices, and it took an hour of wild guessing to arrive there. Enjoy!
Sunday, January 3, 2010
The Road
The Road - Viggo Mortensen stars in the role of "Man" who contends with cannibals and earthquakes all for the safety of "Boy" (Kodi Smit-McPhee). Flashbacks to the start of the not-explained apocalyptic situation show us "Man"s relations with now dead "Wife" (Charlize Theron).
I eagerly awaited this film as soon as I saw the trailer, in spite of my growing impatience with the litany of apocalypse films now on the market. Viggo Mortensen has, with the exception of "Appaloosa", been in a series of exceptional films in this decade and created several unforgettable characters. His portrayal of "Man" is, if not unique, certainly convincing as a man on the edge of defeat in a harsh and impossible situation. If anything can bring him over the edge, it is his incessantly whining hindrance of a son.
In the genres of horror and survival, writers feel that no situation is too barren and terrible that a defenseless sidekick cannot be added on to make it even more unbearable. It's one of the things that needs to be dropped from the mix because when it doesn't work, a film risks being plain unenjoyable. In this case, Kodi Smit-Mcphee says "Papa!" enough times with enough incessant pleading to give all but the most maternal viewer a headache. When Man gives Boy a revolver with one bullet to commit suicide, I immediately think that with those big gloves and that sad sniffle, the Boy will likely botch the job. This is a child with no born survival instinct. Every decision Boy demands (loudly) is almost certainly the wrong one. Can we invite scary looking Robert Duvall over to dinner? Can we follow the possibly cannibalistic boy back to his tribe? Can I shout loudly whenever something might be around, thereby directing it to my location? If Boy is supposed to be a gift from God, I'd say God truly has screwed the world over.
It transformed quickly from being an eagerly awaited film to one that demands nit-picking concerning logic in character choices, especially since survival is so pertinent. If you have a small gun with two bullets, do you a) teach your son how to commit suicide (for over the top dramatic effect) or b) use one of said two bullets to kill an armed man and take his gun? Alas, director John Hillcoat and writer Joe Penhall are less interested in logistics and specifics (what exactly happened to bring us to this state?) than in loose Bible associations and simple Western ideas of "good" and "bad". "We're the good guys, right?" Struggling for that nobility in a world ripped apart is as futile as it is tacky and simple. The only thing that seems to be in shades of gray is the scenery.
The atmosphere of The Road is bleak and suitably depressing. The film provides some thrills and chills but they are few and far between. It loses steam about two thirds of the way through, where I lost concern for the safety of the characters. It's not bad, but a long shot from
Mortensen's usual.
The Road gets a B-
I eagerly awaited this film as soon as I saw the trailer, in spite of my growing impatience with the litany of apocalypse films now on the market. Viggo Mortensen has, with the exception of "Appaloosa", been in a series of exceptional films in this decade and created several unforgettable characters. His portrayal of "Man" is, if not unique, certainly convincing as a man on the edge of defeat in a harsh and impossible situation. If anything can bring him over the edge, it is his incessantly whining hindrance of a son.
In the genres of horror and survival, writers feel that no situation is too barren and terrible that a defenseless sidekick cannot be added on to make it even more unbearable. It's one of the things that needs to be dropped from the mix because when it doesn't work, a film risks being plain unenjoyable. In this case, Kodi Smit-Mcphee says "Papa!" enough times with enough incessant pleading to give all but the most maternal viewer a headache. When Man gives Boy a revolver with one bullet to commit suicide, I immediately think that with those big gloves and that sad sniffle, the Boy will likely botch the job. This is a child with no born survival instinct. Every decision Boy demands (loudly) is almost certainly the wrong one. Can we invite scary looking Robert Duvall over to dinner? Can we follow the possibly cannibalistic boy back to his tribe? Can I shout loudly whenever something might be around, thereby directing it to my location? If Boy is supposed to be a gift from God, I'd say God truly has screwed the world over.
It transformed quickly from being an eagerly awaited film to one that demands nit-picking concerning logic in character choices, especially since survival is so pertinent. If you have a small gun with two bullets, do you a) teach your son how to commit suicide (for over the top dramatic effect) or b) use one of said two bullets to kill an armed man and take his gun? Alas, director John Hillcoat and writer Joe Penhall are less interested in logistics and specifics (what exactly happened to bring us to this state?) than in loose Bible associations and simple Western ideas of "good" and "bad". "We're the good guys, right?" Struggling for that nobility in a world ripped apart is as futile as it is tacky and simple. The only thing that seems to be in shades of gray is the scenery.
The atmosphere of The Road is bleak and suitably depressing. The film provides some thrills and chills but they are few and far between. It loses steam about two thirds of the way through, where I lost concern for the safety of the characters. It's not bad, but a long shot from
Mortensen's usual.
The Road gets a B-
Saturday, January 2, 2010
Happy New Year! Avatar review
Hi! My name is Joey. I've been an avid watcher of movies for years, and a movie critic for the last 7 or so. I've been told that my taste is pretty reliable and my recommendations tend to be accurate. I grade films on a scale of A to F. I have been told by several friends that I should start a blog, and my reviews, when posted on imdb, tend to get at least two thirds or higher of people agreeing with me. I may not be professional, yet, but I have a solid knowledge of film, theater, storytelling and writing and I bring it to you, dear readers. With that said, here is a review of one of the better films of the year: Avatar.
Avatar - Avatar is James Cameron's much awaited epic. It's great to know that something this long in the making was actually worth the wait. Jake (Sam Worthington) is a marine sent to replace his twin brother in a mission on an enemy planet. Jake is uploaded into an "Avatar", a genetic copy of the Na'vi the alien race he is to infiltrate. Jake's loyalties are put to the test.
Avatar reinforces why certain ideas, now scathingly called cliché in the first place, are still so potent in the collective unconsciousness. Obviousness is actually an asset of this film. The problem with so many films that have tried and failed to utilize similar themes, is they have lacked the emotional maturity of Avatar. Other films merely go "through the motions" to try and create what Avatar does. The mere fact that Avatar succeeds so well indicates the truth of its message. Is Jake going to convert? Of course he is. An identifiably realistic portrayal of Jake by Sam Worthington makes us believe this. Who wouldn't want to fly and swing from trees? Who wouldn't want to see so much simple natural beauty and trade it in a heartbeat for their mechanized, false environment? One of the things I liked was that Jake's defection was not just for the sake of his co-star Neytiri (Zoe Saldana), who is played with vitality and heart. No, Jake has truly converted for the sake of nature.
There is great work form the ensemble. Sigourney Weaver, Michelle Rodriguez and Joel Moore all give quality work as the good guys. Stephen Lang plays a badass villain named Colonel Miles Quaritch, while Giovanni Ribisi plays a scummy corporate shill.
The aesthetics and scope of the film are incredible. Whether it is seen in 3-D or not the film is a work of art. The planet is gorgeous from head to toe. Its destruction is a painful reminder of the Amazon Rainforest. Some of the creatures resemble underwater creatures, whilst others bear resemblance to the conquered by nature dinosaurs. The Na'vi are a subtle mix of various conquered peoples through history. They are part Indian in bone structure, part African. And who took these people by storm in the first place you ask? It is a look into the other side's shoes that Avatar provides. We haven't been the good guys for a long time guys. I love my troops for their sacrifices, but I feel that these are very much the wrong wars.
The film succeeds at being preachy by diving in with its heart on its sleeve. The message isn't tacked on: We are the assholes when we go forth with our worst instincts for cruelty and greed. The message is strengthened by a millenia of history. The film jogs its viewers over to the side of peace and naturalism and has them rejecting corporate greed and military strong-arming in the course of three hours. If that's not a testament to the amazing power of correctly done film than I'm not sure what is.
My tiny problem is the choice of the name for the precious metal the Earthers desire so badly: unobtainium. Yeesh. C'mon guys. That's just a little too obvious. How about a little subtlety for audience members over the age of 12? How about "nofindium" or "macguffium"? In such a well crafted film, this feels like a first draft problem everyone was too deeply involved on the project to feel like changing.
Several sites indicate that two sequels are in the works. My initial response was a groan, as I thought this was a great stand-alone film that needed no further examination, but this is James Cameron - the master of sequels we're talking about here. I'm sure this will bear amazing children for the years to come.
2009 was a sorry year in many respects, but film was not one of them. Virtually all of the films I deeply enjoyed for using their brains, brawn and wit were financial successes, even if some really dumb films were as well. Perhaps the mass appetite/recognition for quality has not been diminished, only starved in the past few years. Maybe there is hope after all. If we're going to survive, we'll need intelligence, artistry, and ecological conscientiousness, whether we like it or not.
Avatar gets an A.
Avatar - Avatar is James Cameron's much awaited epic. It's great to know that something this long in the making was actually worth the wait. Jake (Sam Worthington) is a marine sent to replace his twin brother in a mission on an enemy planet. Jake is uploaded into an "Avatar", a genetic copy of the Na'vi the alien race he is to infiltrate. Jake's loyalties are put to the test.
Avatar reinforces why certain ideas, now scathingly called cliché in the first place, are still so potent in the collective unconsciousness. Obviousness is actually an asset of this film. The problem with so many films that have tried and failed to utilize similar themes, is they have lacked the emotional maturity of Avatar. Other films merely go "through the motions" to try and create what Avatar does. The mere fact that Avatar succeeds so well indicates the truth of its message. Is Jake going to convert? Of course he is. An identifiably realistic portrayal of Jake by Sam Worthington makes us believe this. Who wouldn't want to fly and swing from trees? Who wouldn't want to see so much simple natural beauty and trade it in a heartbeat for their mechanized, false environment? One of the things I liked was that Jake's defection was not just for the sake of his co-star Neytiri (Zoe Saldana), who is played with vitality and heart. No, Jake has truly converted for the sake of nature.
There is great work form the ensemble. Sigourney Weaver, Michelle Rodriguez and Joel Moore all give quality work as the good guys. Stephen Lang plays a badass villain named Colonel Miles Quaritch, while Giovanni Ribisi plays a scummy corporate shill.
The aesthetics and scope of the film are incredible. Whether it is seen in 3-D or not the film is a work of art. The planet is gorgeous from head to toe. Its destruction is a painful reminder of the Amazon Rainforest. Some of the creatures resemble underwater creatures, whilst others bear resemblance to the conquered by nature dinosaurs. The Na'vi are a subtle mix of various conquered peoples through history. They are part Indian in bone structure, part African. And who took these people by storm in the first place you ask? It is a look into the other side's shoes that Avatar provides. We haven't been the good guys for a long time guys. I love my troops for their sacrifices, but I feel that these are very much the wrong wars.
The film succeeds at being preachy by diving in with its heart on its sleeve. The message isn't tacked on: We are the assholes when we go forth with our worst instincts for cruelty and greed. The message is strengthened by a millenia of history. The film jogs its viewers over to the side of peace and naturalism and has them rejecting corporate greed and military strong-arming in the course of three hours. If that's not a testament to the amazing power of correctly done film than I'm not sure what is.
My tiny problem is the choice of the name for the precious metal the Earthers desire so badly: unobtainium. Yeesh. C'mon guys. That's just a little too obvious. How about a little subtlety for audience members over the age of 12? How about "nofindium" or "macguffium"? In such a well crafted film, this feels like a first draft problem everyone was too deeply involved on the project to feel like changing.
Several sites indicate that two sequels are in the works. My initial response was a groan, as I thought this was a great stand-alone film that needed no further examination, but this is James Cameron - the master of sequels we're talking about here. I'm sure this will bear amazing children for the years to come.
2009 was a sorry year in many respects, but film was not one of them. Virtually all of the films I deeply enjoyed for using their brains, brawn and wit were financial successes, even if some really dumb films were as well. Perhaps the mass appetite/recognition for quality has not been diminished, only starved in the past few years. Maybe there is hope after all. If we're going to survive, we'll need intelligence, artistry, and ecological conscientiousness, whether we like it or not.
Avatar gets an A.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)