The Movies thread!

[Atterr]

Just came back from Avatar... WOW

Almost 13 years after Titanic, the self-proclaimed King of the World is back, and what a return it is! Although I was sceptic at first about his new technology developed specifically for this movie, James Cameron has completely won me over. Avatar really is a feast for the eyes. The nature, people and creatures of Pandora are a thing of beauty. There is so much detail in every shot that the world really comes alive. I really wanted to spend more time on this planet. It is almost a shame that in the last 45 minutes Cameron lets loose the marines on Pandora. I say almost because, despite his long absence, it is immediately clear that Cameron is still one of the best action directors around.

Now I have to admit that Avatar has a very simple and somewhat cliche storyline (basically Pocahontas on a distant planet), but honestly I think that this is not really a bad thing. For this kind of movie a more complicated plot would probably only distract the audience from the visual experience. The movie also has some nice reflections on the current world and the ecological message (reminiscent of Miyazaki) fortunately isn't too preachy.

The movie has some other flaws, however. I still don't think Sam Worthington has enough charisma to be a leading man, and his relationship with Neytiri could have been developed better. Also, the song playing over the end credits has to be one of the worst in recent years. But when I complain about the song, I realise how much I liked the movie as there was little else to complain about. Welcome back James Cameron, but please don't let it take so long for your next film.

(I have seen Avatar in IMAX by the way - which I recommend to anyone - and it undoubtedly affects my judgment. Therefore I really wonder how this movie will hold up when I see it on dvd or blu-ray on a small screen.)

Edited December 24, 2009 by Atterr

[njskaguy33]

Nice writeup, Atterr! I'm probably not going to see this one until after the New Year, but I'm looking forward to it based on the great reviews it's been getting across the board. Rather than brave the monstrous lines for Avatar this weekend, I saw Up In the Air instead and it was pretty fantastic. I'm in the middle of writing my review for it now, but suffice to say, it's well worth a watch now that it's in Wide release.

[njskaguy33]

Just Watched

[njskaguy33]

Happy New Year, movie lovers! Since there are no major releases this week, let take a look to the recently announced Golden Globes nominations. Generally, the Globes are a pretty good indicator of who

[Atterr]

I have seen too few of the nominated movies, so I'm not even going to make predictions. But I hope Avatar, Inglorious Basterds, (500)Days of Summer and The Hangover get their win in one category or another.

I am surprised though that there aren't any nominations for A Serious Man, Harry Brown (for Michael Caine especially) and Where the Wild Things Are. I have seen these movies over the last months, and although I did not have the time to write a proper review for them, they easily rank among the best I have seen this year.

Edited January 2, 2010 by Atterr

[njskaguy33]

I have seen too few of the nominated movies, so I'm not even going to make predictions. But I hope Avatar, Inglorious Basterds, (500)Days of Summer and The Hangover get their win in one category or another.

I am surprised though that there aren't any nominations for A Serious Man, Harry Brown (for Michael Caine especially) and Where the Wild Things Are. I have seen these movies over the last months, and although I did not have the time to write a proper review for them, they easily rank among the best I have seen this year.

While I haven't seen Avatar yet, (planning on doing so this week), I think Waltz will win a Best Supporting for the Basterds. As for (500) Days of Summer, I saw it a couple of days ago and it was excellent! I'm a touch tired to write a full review, but this is the exact type of "relationship film" that I like to see...quirky, painfully yet beautifully honest and completely genuine. The leads in the film were both very good as well, and I now totally get the film's two nominations.

As for your snubs, I was also very suprised to see A Serious Man not get anything. While I haven't seen it yet, every review I read said that it was one of the Cohen Brother's best and most complete films, so to see it's exclusion is surprising.

[Beezer34]

While I haven't seen Avatar yet, (planning on doing so this week)

ditto

[njskaguy33]

Opening This Week

[njskaguy33]

New Movie Review

Sherlock Holmes

To be fair, we

[DaneykoIsGod]

I'm posting this here because it's related to a new movie. I'm also posting this because of how utterly pathetic it is.

http://www.cnn.com/2010/SHOWBIZ/Movies/01/11/avatar.movie.blues/index.html

James Cameron's completely immersive spectacle "Avatar" may have been a little too real for some fans who say they have experienced depression and suicidal thoughts after seeing the film because they long to enjoy the beauty of the alien world Pandora.

On the fan forum site "Avatar Forums," a topic thread entitled "Ways to cope with the depression of the dream of Pandora being intangible," has received more than 1,000 posts from people experiencing depression and fans trying to help them cope. The topic became so popular last month that forum administrator Philippe Baghdassarian had to create a second thread so people could continue to post their confused feelings about the movie.

A user named Mike wrote on the fan Web site "Naviblue" that he contemplated suicide after seeing the movie.

"Ever since I went to see 'Avatar' I have been depressed. Watching the wonderful world of Pandora and all the Na'vi made me want to be one of them. I can't stop thinking about all the things that happened in the film and all of the tears and shivers I got from it," Mike posted. "I even contemplate suicide thinking that if I do it I will be rebirthed in a world similar to Pandora and the everything is the same as in 'Avatar.' "

Unbelievable.

[njskaguy33]

I'm posting this here because it's related to a new movie. I'm also posting this because of how utterly pathetic it is.

http://www.cnn.com/2010/SHOWBIZ/Movies/01/11/avatar.movie.blues/index.html

Unbelievable.

Wow...that is really sad. I wonder how many of these people actually have a mental illness that's being stirred up by the movie and how many are just "me-tooing" for attention.

My intital reaction to this type of exrtreme fandom is always, "Get a life, get laid, get something" but I could see how an already disturbed person could have their condition worsened by this utopian world. Still, it really is unbeleivable that people react this way. Good article!

[CRASHER]

Trouble in Spider-Man land it seems

http://blogs.wsj.com/speakeasy/2010/01/11/columbia-scraps-plans-for-%E2%80%9Cspider-man-4%E2%80%9D-in-2011-will-reboot-franchise-in-2012-without-tobey-maguire-and-director-sam-raimi/

Sony Corp.

[Atterr]

Trouble in Spider-Man land it seems

http://blogs.wsj.com/speakeasy/2010/01/11/columbia-scraps-plans-for-%E2%80%9Cspider-man-4%E2%80%9D-in-2011-will-reboot-franchise-in-2012-without-tobey-maguire-and-director-sam-raimi/

Sony Corp.

[CRASHER]

I love the first two Spider-Mans, but since creative differences between Raimi and the producers resulted in a mediocre and very messy third installment, I am not really too surprised and disappointed by this news. I don't really care for a reboot as it seems too soon (the original is only from 2002). I am excited though that Raimi now has more time to do other films. Preferably a new horror like last year's outstanding Drag Me to Hell.

Spidey 3 definitely felt more like a bad emo-comedy then a comic book movie (and they sh!t vastly on the Venom character which annoyed me)...it's also a good possibility this was a cost-cutting move (using cheaper actor for Spidey then McGuire means they can throw Spidey in the Avengers movie as well....)

It's also possible it might be a prequel movie too, looks like we ain't gonna be in a big rush to find out

[DaneykoIsGod]

Wow, that's pretty quick for a reboot, no? Well ... the first Michael Keaton Batman was in '89 and the Christian Bale reboot was 2005. Is 10 years that much sooner than 16? It feels like it's too soon.

Maybe it'll start a new trend with this comic book movie explosion. Studios no longer will be bogged down by the authentic comic book storylines or proximity of prior movie release dates before exploring new plots and character developments. Could be good for creativity, although it just reaks of a cash grab.

[njskaguy33]

On another note, I watched Synecdoche, New York yesterday, the directorial debut of Charlie Kaufman, writer of such films as Being John Malkovich, Adaptation and Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind. Of course, Kaufman also wrote the script for this movie, but it is by far the most incomprehensible story he's written. It is typical Kaufman in the way it deals with reality and imagination. However, in this movie it is never clear which scenes are real or which take place only in the head of the main character, a 30-something theatre director who, when given the chance to produce a new play, builds actual parts of New York in a larger than life building. And then the madness begins... Synecdoche, New York is a good movie, but I'm not really able to explain why yet. It would probably take multiple viewing to understand the whole thing, but I liked its ideas on life, Philip Seymour Hoffman's fantastic portrayal and Kaufman's audacity to make such a movie.

I did a review of Synecdoche about 7 months ago when I first saw it and while I had the same reaction as you, I didn't enjoy it quite as much. While there are moments of sheer genius in the film, the whole thing felt like a big jumbled mess. Still, I love the way Kaufman writes and I applaud the guts it took to actually make this movie, but I wonder if a better director would have reigned in the screenplay and make it a touch more accessable. Films don't have to be easy, but they shouldn't require a gargantuan effort on the part of the viewer to get the jist.

Here's a link to my original review if anybody is interested:

Review

[njskaguy33]

Wow, that's pretty quick for a reboot, no? Well ... the first Michael Keaton Batman was in '89 and the Christian Bale reboot was 2005. Is 10 years that much sooner than 16? It feels like it's too soon.

Maybe it'll start a new trend with this comic book movie explosion. Studios no longer will be bogged down by the authentic comic book storylines or proximity of prior movie release dates before exploring new plots and character developments. Could be good for creativity, although it just reaks of a cash grab.

After reading CRASHER's original post, I had the same reaction. It definately feels like it's too soon for a complete reboot. The Batman series is a decent analogy, but in that case, Batman and Robin killed the franchise and it had to be re-booted in order for anyone, including the studios, to care. I've never seen Spiderman 3, but I don't think it was that bad a movie, at least not epicly bad like Batman and Robin was. From all that I've read, Spiderman 3 is much like Batman Forever...not terrible, but no where near the quality of the first two.

Also, I'm not sure what new angle the filmmakers can take with Spiderman. It was already established how he got his powers and we've seen the character arc through the first three movies. CRASHER mentioned a prequel, but I don't know what you could go back to with Spidey. Him at his aunts house eating cereal and playing video games? Again, I don't know enough about the comic or the series to see if there is any meat in Peter Parker's backstory, but I really don't see what new direction they can take. Sure will be interesting to find out though!

[DaneykoIsGod]

After reading CRASHER's original post, I had the same reaction. It definately feels like it's too soon for a complete reboot. The Batman series is a decent analogy, but in that case, Batman and Robin killed the franchise and it had to be re-booted in order for anyone, including the studios, to care. I've never seen Spiderman 3, but I don't think it was that bad a movie, at least not epicly bad like Batman and Robin was. From all that I've read, Spiderman 3 is much like Batman Forever...not terrible, but no where near the quality of the first two.

Very, very fair analogy. Spiderman 3 sucked, but nowhere near as hard as Batman and Robin.

Also, I'm not sure what new angle the filmmakers can take with Spiderman. It was already established how he got his powers and we've seen the character arc through the first three movies. CRASHER mentioned a prequel, but I don't know what you could go back to with Spidey. Him at his aunts house eating cereal and playing video games? Again, I don't know enough about the comic or the series to see if there is any meat in Peter Parker's backstory, but I really don't see what new direction they can take. Sure will be interesting to find out though!

I'm no comic buff either, but my brother was big into Spiderman as a kid. From what he's told me, the Tobey Maguire franchise did a very good job of sticking to the comic book (at least the first movie did). Maybe now you hand it off to some creative, original writers/director and have them dream up a brand new beginning for a classic character? Not to the Batman analogy, but Batman Begins was a pretty serious departure from the traditional beginnings of the character ... with him being in a prison somewhere in Asia kicking the crap out of people and being trained by whoever Liam Neeson was portraying. This may be the kind of reboot they're looking for. Especially given the success the Nolan Batman franchise has had.

Edited January 12, 2010 by DaneykoIsGod

[njskaguy33]

I'm no comic buff either, but my brother was big into Spiderman as a kid. From what he's told me, the Tobey Maguire franchise did a very good job of sticking to the comic book (at least the first movie did). Maybe now you hand it off to some creative, original writers/director and have them dream up a brand new beginning for a classic character? Not to the Batman analogy, but Batman Begins was a pretty serious departure from the traditional beginnings of the character ... with him being in a prison somewhere in Asia kicking the crap out of people and being trained by whoever Liam Neeson was portraying. This may be the kind of reboot they're looking for. Especially given the success the Nolan Batman franchise has had.

That's a very fair point as well. If that's the case with Spidey, then a re-boot could be very interesting, especially if it's hands of a quality screenwriter and director. Another good analogy would be the recent Star Trek reboot. While I don't think the departure from the original was as dramatic as the Batman series, the film had a new look, a new style and the result was fantastic.

[DaneykoIsGod]

Good point. Can't say enough good things about that Star Trek reboot.

I wonder if it's gonna eventually get to the point where we have dozens of movie adaptations of the same characters/franchises? I mean we've already got two Star Treks, about to get a second Spiderman, three Batmans (counting the campy Adam West one ... talk about a departure) ... could be a good thing or a bad thing, depending on how they're executed.

[njskaguy33]

Good point. Can't say enough good things about that Star Trek reboot.

I wonder if it's gonna eventually get to the point where we have dozens of movie adaptations of the same characters/franchises? I mean we've already got two Star Treks, about to get a second Spiderman, three Batmans (counting the campy Adam West one ... talk about a departure) ... could be a good thing or a bad thing, depending on how they're executed.

Personally, I don't think it's a bad thing at all. I mean, look how many versions of stories like A Christmas Carol we have. Classic characters and stories tend to get told again and again because each generation has a different take and different sensibilities. So long as the reboot isn't done out of greed or cash grabbing as you put it, re-hashing the same ideas can be perfectly fine.

That being said, I've never been a huge fan of the film regurgatation that's been happening recently, simply because it seems as though Hollywood is running out of ideas. Films like Star Trek and the new Batman series are exceptions because they were artfully done, but the majority seem to be done for the nostalgia factor. Hopefully the Spiderman re-boot in is in the Star Trek category.

[Atterr]

I'm no comic buff either, but my brother was big into Spiderman as a kid. From what he's told me, the Tobey Maguire franchise did a very good job of sticking to the comic book (at least the first movie did). Maybe now you hand it off to some creative, original writers/director and have them dream up a brand new beginning for a classic character? Not to the Batman analogy, but Batman Begins was a pretty serious departure from the traditional beginnings of the character ... with him being in a prison somewhere in Asia kicking the crap out of people and being trained by whoever Liam Neeson was portraying. This may be the kind of reboot they're looking for. Especially given the success the Nolan Batman franchise has had.

As a former comic reader, I can tell you that Batman Begins wasn't really that radical a departure. It is based on Batman: Year One and included various elements (including martial arts training abroad) as well as the same gritty tone of the novel. If anything, I think that the Schumacher and even Burton ones do not do justice to the comic (only Batman Returns can match it somewhat). As for Spider-Man, I hope they don't take the Nolan-way and go all dark and realistic on us. Don't get me wrong, I love BB and The Dark Knight, but I doubt it'll work for Spidey. Sam Raimi did it another way, and it turned out great as the movies are arguably as good as Nolan's Batmans.

I just read a rumor on aintitcool that the studio wanted Peter and MJ to have a baby in the film If that's really true, can't blame Raimi for walking away...

[DaneykoIsGod]

As a former comic reader, I can tell you that Batman Begins wasn't really that radical a departure. It is based on Batman: Year One and included various elements (including martial arts training abroad) as well as the same gritty tone of the novel.

When I first heard that the Batman reboot was gonna be based on Year One, I was pumped. After that rumor came out, my buddy loaned the graphic novel to me and I tore through it. Such a great story, so well done in so many ways. I remember actually being thoroughly disappointed after first seeing the movie since the story, however influenced by the novel it may have been, was completely different.

But in the long run it was a good thing. Critics slammed 300 for basically being a page-for-page reproduction of the novel (never read it myself, so I can't really comment, but I thought the movie was awesome). Watchmen was hailed for putting its own spin on the novel (sick novel, sick movie, nice interpretation with an ending that was better suited for the big screen than the novel's), although it wasn't nearly as much of a departure from the novel as BB was from B:YO.

[Atterr]

I did a review of Synecdoche about 7 months ago when I first saw it and while I had the same reaction as you, I didn't enjoy it quite as much. While there are moments of sheer genius in the film, the whole thing felt like a big jumbled mess. Still, I love the way Kaufman writes and I applaud the guts it took to actually make this movie, but I wonder if a better director would have reigned in the screenplay and make it a touch more accessable. Films don't have to be easy, but they shouldn't require a gargantuan effort on the part of the viewer to get the jist.

Here's a link to my original review if anybody is interested:

Review

Thanks for the link! Interesting to read your take on it, and although your make some fair points, I personally do not think that a movie has to be completely understood or explained to be fully appreciated. David Lynch's Mulholland Drive and Inland Empire are two modern masterpieces, although most of the time I don't know what the hell is going on (indeed even beyond the point of frustration). In the case of SNY, I can appreciate how the whole plot is basically just a means for the humanity on show.

[Hi, I'm VALUE!]

Very, very fair analogy. Spiderman 3 sucked, but nowhere near as hard as Batman and Robin.

I'm no comic buff either, but my brother was big into Spiderman as a kid. From what he's told me, the Tobey Maguire franchise did a very good job of sticking to the comic book (at least the first movie did). Maybe now you hand it off to some creative, original writers/director and have them dream up a brand new beginning for a classic character? Not to the Batman analogy, but Batman Begins was a pretty serious departure from the traditional beginnings of the character ... with him being in a prison somewhere in Asia kicking the crap out of people and being trained by whoever Liam Neeson was portraying. This may be the kind of reboot they're looking for. Especially given the success the Nolan Batman franchise has had.

Liam Neeson = Rhas al'Ghul (sp?), for the record.

And for the record, I was shocked to hear about this, and I hope they don't go away from the grittiness and stark reality of the last three movies (as compared to other comic books), but at the same time I hope the villans get more justice than one-and-done. Some of them that worked out OK (Sandman) and some it didn't (Venom).