|
Connect with Facebook
|
By Collin, on July 29th, 2010
The Last Airbender
The Last Airbender is a beautiful (looking) film from director M. Night Shyamlan. The film is based on the adored show which garnered success with both critics and audiences. The show won Emmys, Genesis Awards, a Peabody, Animation awards, and had millions of viewers per week during its three seasons. This show was a big deal. Odds are you know someone who likes it.
The film takes place in a world where human beings have the ability to manipulate fire, water, air, and earth. Normally, benders can only manipulate one element. However, this film follows Aang, played by Noah Ringer, a young boy who is the last reincarnation of the Avatar who can “bend” all elements. The Avatar is a being who reincarnates every time he dies. Little Aang runs from his responsibilities and is mistakenly frozen in ice for a hundred years. He is awoken in the ice by Katara, and Sokka, who align with him to save the world.
I kept on trying to envision a way not to give The Last Airbender a bad rating, but I just have to. It was bad. I’ve read you’re not supposed to call artistic works bad if they’re not evil, but to instead use the word “poor”. This film came off as evil to me. People took issue with Chloë Moretz cursing and killing in Kickass, saying that it was completely depraved. Her character seems obviously satirical, ironic, and funny to me, especially considering it was for teenagers/adults and was R rated.
Airbender is for kids and there was something big missing from the movie that the cartoon was all about: Fun. Changing Aang’s character is wrong, wrong, wrong. Sure, Chloe saying cunt is a little naughty, but what does it say to children when a hero of theirs is changed from a joking clown, to an Emo dickhead? Aang is more like Donnie Darko in Shyamalan’s version. It was like seeing Calvin, from Calvin and Hobbes, doing heroin. Aang’s original character, from the Peabody Award-winning show, is a fun-loving kid.
There are hints of the original character here. Mostly in a climatic scene with Prince Zuko played by Dev Patel. Aang runs up behind Zuko, humorously moving with him to avoid being seen. That’s straight Aang. He also quips “we could be friends” as he’s walking away. The line is dismally delivered, but we get the point.
Aang, the real character, is more interested in screwing around and playing with his friends than saving the world. That was the core of the god damn show. I haven’t read anyone taking issue with that! Who cares about the plot? I don’t. Of course it is going to be confusing, but they just missed every mark with Aang. If they’d nailed him and mucked up everything else, at least it would have the lovable Aang.
Aside from Aang, I take issue with a lot in this movie. So instead of writing a book, I’ll quickly list them:
- The the universe the characters inhabit doesn’t look “used”:
- George Lucas and Peter Jackson harped on their crews to make their film’s costumes, props, sets, etc, look used, as if people has inhabited them. Not popped out of a special effects house or costume shop. Everyone in Airbender looks too clean as if they were staging a high school play.
- The film doesn’t have Anime influenced look
- May or may not have been a good thing. The look is so specific, to try emulate it might have been unwatchable.
- The original characters are Inuit and Asian. Not white
- That is fine if you want to change the race of a character. I don’t think it is racist, I know it is racist, as well as being stupid and distracting. However, I don’t care because I understand that Hollywood has to aim for an audience and the reality is most Americans are white. Casting white leads was likely the only way to secure a hundred million dollar plus budget. But I take issue with it because it is DISTRACTING! When everyone in a village is Inuit and the characters are white, it is laughable. I could get into why the Fire nation is mostly Indian, but I’m not sure if that is in the cartoon. I haven’t seen it in a while.
- The leads are really poor
- I don’t mean poor like Jake Lloyd as Skywalker poor. I mean godawful. Unwatchable. Nicola Peltz, as Katara is okay…kinda. But Noah Ringer as Aang and Jackson Rathbone as Sokka were just unwatchable and likely to no fault of their own. They were just miscast. I imagine Shyamlan was enthralled by Noah’s martial arts abilities, which are cool, but he just mumbles through his lines. They sound rehearsed and stilted. Even the jokes are bad. Rathbone just had no chance. Sokka’s great character was relegated to nothing.
- All dialogue is exposition.
- Characters talk to the audience basically. It it weird, uncomfortable, distracting, and none of the great characters can take shape. Take the meeting between Sokka and Princess Yue. Katara just tells the audience they like each other. There is no meet-cute moment, no flirting, no fun. Stupid.
- Appa isn’t a character, he’s a prop.
- Appa is to Aang as Chewie is to Han Solo. He is big, lazy, and has a really funny personality. What the fuck happened?
For all my criticisms, the movie does look kind of cool. The special effects are pretty cool and they nailed the look of Appa. I didn’t see it in 3-D so I can’t comment on that, all I can say is M. Night Shyamalan is not a great director or actor. I dislike many, if not all, of his films. I was willing to live with the fact that he made mediocre films that were generally well-respected. Now he has raped a beloved franchise. What will he do next?
Release Date: July 2010
Collin says: F
You’ll say: D
By devon, on July 26th, 2010
Up (2009)
By Devon Gilbert
Up is one of those movies that makes me wonder how I was ever able to watch hand drawn cartoons. I feel bad for saying that considering hand drawn animation is still very difficult to achieve and has made for many great films/TV shows, but CGI animation blows it out of the water. It seems that every CGI animated film I see looks more gorgeous and detailed than the last. Up is no exception.
Of course, by now, everyone knows to expect an above average film when there is a Pixar label involved. It goes without saying the animation is top tier. As for story, it was one of the best and most mature I have ever seen in an animated film. It involves an old man, Carl Fredrickson (voiced by Ed Asner), who is struggling with life after the loss of his wife. In an attempt to make his late wife’s dream come true, he attaches a bunch of helium balloons to his house and sets out for the “undiscovered” Lost Land. Unbeknownst to him, Wilderness Explorer Russell (voiced by Jordan Nagai) was on his porch when he took off.
From there the plot takes off in more or less a typical Pixar adventure. But the themes are more mature. I think adults are going to be more touched by this film than kids. On the flip side, I think kids will enjoy the humor more than the adults. Though, I don’t know how anyone could not laugh at the “squirrel” running gag. There is a montage that runs through Carl’s whole life with his wife and continues past her death. It sums up the bright side of marriage in less than five minuets, a feat which I consider to be one of the best attempted in an animated film. The movie is not perfect though.
I found Russell to be stupid annoying, not stupid funny. The more Russell talked, the more I started to feel like I was watching a film about the mentally handicapped. Also, I thought the villains (dogs with collars that allow them to speak) were weak and not very intimidating. But maybe I’m judging a kids movie to seriously. Leave it to Pixar to make you wonder.
Up: A-
By devon, on July 26th, 2010
Turkey Shoot (aka Escape 2000) (1982)
By Devon Gilbert
I decided to view this old ozploitation movie (meaning Australian exploitation flick) because it looked like one of the better movies on the excellent Not Quite Hollywood documentary. Turkey Shoot is more or less what I expected from the clips, which is to say it was a silly, bloody, low-budget action exploitation movie. I was a little surprised that Brian Trenchard-Smith directed it, considering his other “famous” ozploitation movie Dead-End Drive In seemed to be much more mature and less focused on shock value. But that was made five years after this one.
The plot for Turkey Shoot is incredibly simple. Sometime in the near future a totalitarian government rules Australia. All people that deviate from what they’re told, or are even accused of it, end up being sent to a strict prison camp where they undergo behavior modifications. Or more simply, people are sent to these camps to be abused and killed. From what we see of the camp, people are forced to work hard labor and take showers naked together. They are also beaten to a bloody pulp and lit on fire. However five people, three of them main characters, are given a chance at freedom if they can survive being hunted in the wilderness for 24 hours.
The three main victims of the hunt are Steve Railsback (Barb Wire, The Devil’s Rejects) as Paul Anders, Olivia Hussey (1968 Romeo and Juliet, It) as Chris Walters, and Lynda Stoner (no other movies) as Rita Daniels. I think for a B movie like this they all do a good job with their roles, though in all honesty Stoner barely has anything to do in this. Hussey looks genuinely terrified the whole movie (and according to interviews with the cast she was genuinely scared of Australian wildlife) and that’s really all she has to do. Railsback is entertaining as the stereotypical hero who won’t give the evil camp warden (Michael Craig) the satisfaction of breaking. He looks like a wimp but he has charisma, I guess.
I liked the brutality of the camp, but it was probably much more shocking in the 80’s. Still, the abuse of the prisoners is so outrageously sadistic (like beating a women to death for not being able to sing an anthem right) that it’s hard not to be satisfied. The hunt takes up the brunt of the movie, and the gore is what saves it. People die in such violent ways (impaling, being cut in half) that the movie redeems itself from any flaws. Plus, the addition of a mutant werewolf like hunter and a crazy lesbian hunter gets bonus points. The climax features a giant body count and plenty of explosions, even if it’s all still low budget.
For anybody that likes B movies, this is definitely one to check out. It’s sadistic, violent, and shocking (though not in a Saw or Hostel way) but still silly and unserious. It’s also in a lot of ways better than the B movies that come out these days.
Turkey Shoot: B+
By devon, on July 19th, 2010
The Final Destination (2009)
by Devon Gilbert
I definitely don’t love the Final Destination series, but I still find them enjoyable. They really were never about story and character, though you might be able to argue that the first one had some of both. Instead they featured really cool death scenes (the opening car crash scene in Final Destination 2 being my personal favorite) at a pretty good pace. Based on that criteria, I thought that The Final Destination was very entertaining, though technically it might be the worst of the series. I find it tough to tell because two of the movie’s best assets, 3-D home viewing and its incredibly short runtime (I believe the end credits start before the 80min mark), have really nothing to do with talent.
The plot of this movie is pretty much exactly the same as the other three in the series. This time the initiating incident is a car race, and the person with a premonition is Nick O’Bannon (played by unknown Bobby Campo.) As anyone familiar with the series knows, Nick has a long premonition in which he sees many people die (including himself, his girl, and his friends) due to a mammoth car crash and the instability of the stadium. Of course, Nick gets his crew out just in time to escape the predicated disaster. So as usually, Death picks them off one by one in the order they died in Nick’s premonition.
For me it goes without saying that the characters are insignificant. I would have been shocked if they were well drawn, and given the content of the movie, I would have been disappointed if they were. I liked that The Final Destination gets right down to the point. The movie moves from death scene to death scene with very little filler in-between. The death scenes themselves are entertaining but certainly not groundbreaking. There is much more of a reliance on “paranormal activity” in this entry, which didn’t really bother as much as it will some people. On average the deaths weren’t the most creative in the series, but they were clever enough to pass the time. I also wouldn’t describe this movie as violent and/or gory, but it earns its R rating. Overall, this movie chose quantity of deaths over quality of deaths, which makes for faster pacing but also means nothing memorable happens.
The 3-D element of the movie is really what makes the movie good despite its flaws. Since it’s so rare to be able to watch a 3-D horror movie at home, I think The Final Destination benefits from being one of those few. I guess the 3-D element makes the deaths creative. For instance, some deaths are shown in “X-Ray” vision, an effect that was cool in 3-D but would probably look cheap in 2D. And make no mistake, the makers of The Final Destination milk the 3D for all it’s worth. It is clearly a gimmick in this movie, with planks getting upturned and metal shrapnel shooting forward, as opposed to Avatar which has none of the traditional 3D gimmicks. But even as a gimmick, it works (at least until there are tons of 3D movies you can watch at home, which would make The Final Destination’s best asset seem old.)
As a solid good movie, The Final Destination fails. As the forth entry in a decent horror series, The Final Destination is okay. As a 3D horror movie, The Final Destination is good solid fun.
The Final Destination: B
By devon, on July 19th, 2010
The Hurt Locker (2008)
It is fairly well known that Hollywood has been having trouble making films about the war on terror and even more trouble selling them to audiences. I have seen many of these and not been too impressed. A couple of good ones that come to mind are The Kingdom (maybe the end is more Arnold Schwarzenegger film than accurate war film but it’s still awesome) and In the Valley of Elah. The Hurt Locker, directed by Kathryn Bigelow, is one of the better attempts but I was pretty disappointed given the buzz surrounding it.
The plot of the film is very simple. It follows wildcat SSgt. William James (Jeremy Renner) as he diffuses bombs in Iraq. He is both feared and respected for his courage bordering on suicide. Many characters in the film, including his “for the most part” right hand man Sgt. JT Sanborn (Anthony Mackie), wonder why/how he does it. The film has a simple answer, war is a drug and like any drug, it is addictive. Not to mention he feels more at home in a blazing car ready to explode than he is trying to find cereal in a grocery store.
The film does a good job of not turning the soldiers into clichés, probably through the combination of a decent script and excellent acting. There’s no comic relief or character that dies heroically to save others. Nope. Just people doing their jobs and usually not liking it, unless of course, they’re addicted. Also, the war scenes themselves are not cliché. In fact, you usually don’t even know whom or from where bullets are coming from, just like a real battle. The only problem with that is some of the action scenes almost lack intensity because it’s just random bullets flying at random people.
The action is almost non-stop in this movie. But it’s all filmed realistically and without typical Hollywood action style. This movie trades slow mo car flips for the nervous tension that goes into diffusing a bomb that could easily level a street while being shot at from various locations. And while no one comes of as a typical “hero”, all the soldiers come of as brave and respectable. Their character flaws make them more identifiable.
I don’t feel this is one of the best war films ever made like some critics. I think it gives good insight into why some soldiers are constantly willing to risk it all, something most war films ignore or cheapen, but there isn’t much emotional payoff. I wasn’t overwhelmed by powerful emotions like in better war movies like Saving Private Ryan and Platoon. I can’t even really say that I was surprised by anything that happened in this movie; in other words, if you have seen a average amount of Iraq war coverage both real and fictional than I doubt you’ll find much that is new here. But still, for a gritty look at the daily grind of soldiers constantly in danger in Iraq, this is a solid entry.
The Hurt Locker: B
(I thought I should add that after I wrote this review, The Hurt Locker went on to win best picture and director Oscars. That is absolutely ridiculous. Inglorious Basterds, Precious, Avatar (yes technical genius trumps an important story that is average), Up In The Air, Up, and District 9 were all better films. Shame on the Academy.)
|
Recent Comments