Avatar Review... Finally

I have been rather lax with my blog writing, and even though I saw this "epic" one month ago to the day - it has taken me that long to finally sit down and write about it. Maybe that will make my memory of it a bit hazy... but maybe - maybe that's a good thing. I'm not trying to put the film down, but the things that I found so annoying after watching it have subsided into a warm dislike and acceptance of Cameron's film making. Why try and change an old dog?

For those of you haven't seen or heard about the film - or have been living under a rock for the past 2 months; the film is about a paraplegic, Jake, ex-army officer, whose twin brother scientist as unfortunately died, who has to take over his brother's mission on Pandora by embodying his Navi Avatar. As well as the "good" scientists on Pandora, there are also the "bad" capitalists who want to mine the Planet's natural resource "Unobtainum" (go figure - I guess they had a bum day calling minerals that day). So Jake becomes a double agent trying to win the trust of the native Navi and convincing them to allow the humans to mine. Thus follows the eternal conundrum - destroying the environment for money, backstabbing the natives who at first seem like monsters and later become best friends yadda yadda yadda. For a better analogy see South Park's new episode: "Dances with Smurfs".

The film I must admit was fantastic - and even though I sat through it in German and had to undergo an interval, which they seem to love so much on the continent, it wasn't half bad. Yes I shall attempt to take a glass half full approach, which - as my friends know - rarely ever happens.

The photography is excellent - well what I mean to say is kudos to all those who worked so hard to make those epic landscapes! The acting was brilliant - but I wouldn't expect any less from a James Cameron film. And the plot although a bit weak held together quite well, the analogy of being at one with the world, did hark on a bit to the Circle of life in the Lion King, however man's conscience and the greater good was great, and did allow for great 3D (for a better review of the 3D quality and possibly a better review of the film: http://www.scribd.com/doc/24729968/Avatar-Review).

The detail that was gone into for the 3D experience was epic - such as fireflies at varying depths and flying on a Pterodactyl among the "hanging gardens". I dare not express my criticisms as I relive the joys of the film... however even though the 3D effects were thought about I would have thought that James (or at least the Producers) would have invested more money into the species development. I have two main irks regarding this - 1) considering that they link to every other animal via their hair-tentacle thingy why, oh why, do they have to kiss to show intimacy etc - surely it would make more sense to "bond" properly. 2) why do the Navi look nothing like the other animals on their world (grotesque) - I'm sure it would have made for a great and watchable film. If one can assume an evolutionary pattern they should look a bit like the moneys we saw at the beginning of the film, and if evolved from cats they they should resemble one of the "dog-esq" animals, well I hope you know what I mean.

My other criticism is about the "big-bad" Col. Quaritch. He's just one mo-fo who won't die. Able to hold his breath forever... having a body built like a tank... having a Matrix III style robot fighter... he just wouldn't go down. His never-ending-ness made the end of the film a bit more boring than it should have been. Which was a bit of a shame... coz you know how we all love our happy endings. A bit too saccharine perhaps??

Holmes... not Watson

well maybe AND Watson...

I saw Sherlock Holmes in London, not too far from the famous 221b Baker Street, on Crate Day. And boy were there crates (of the exploding kind).

The film was actually quite pleasant, having not read the books I can only base my knowledge of Holmes on the Basil Rathbone series and the Hound of the Baskervilles with Richard Roxburgh (and Richard E. Grant) both of whom played a markedly different Sherlock from that of Robert Downey Jr. .

The film centres on the Victorian penchant for the dramatic and mysterious, with white magic and black magic and Masonic sects. The big bad (Lord Blackwood) being a bent toothed Mark Strong (who has a habit of playing exceedingly good bad guys, although I' sure he doesn't mind being type cast and I don't mind watching him so, though I will always remember him as Mr. Knightly), who has decided to ...

take over the world (duh duh durrrr)...

the world obviously being Victorian England. Sherlock is sent to clear Watson's name and find out how Blackwood a) survived a hanging and b) is killing off the prominent people of London.

It's swashbuckling fun, with disguises and animated conversation, coupled with a gorgeous seductress and a bit of physics. On a whole a great action film with a bit of brains and brilliant accents including Dredger - the French giant's. And the promise of more to come with Holmes' arch-nemesis Prof. Moriarty making a discrete appearance.

The dynamic between RDJ (Downey Jr.) and Jude Law is brilliant, they really bounce off each other well and make the film brilliant. Even though I had my apprehensions about the casting of RDJ I think that the right choice was made and can't think of a contemporary actor who would have played the part better.

My only bugbears are minor but worth their input.

Firstly, the slow-mo fight scenes are good (a couple of my friends can't stand them, but I'm willing to give the film the benefit of the doubt) but if you are going to use that technique, it should be consistently used and not just twice in the beginning of the film. It may have been something to do with the pacing, obviously the climatic fights at the end wouldn't do with slo-mo parts, but if it is going to be used it should be in the whole film.

Secondly, the film is grand but it does feel a bit like Poirot (I could have more fun watching David Suchet). What I mean is that I don't think that the big screen really offers it much; I could easily have accepted that this was an extended TV drama, and happily watched it.

Thirdly, the locations are great but I don't think the time taken to travel from one to another was well considered. Guy Ritchie is a London lad and I'm a London girl so I do expect better. All right trying to palm off something like this to those not from the city but at least cater for those who are. Such as running through the sewage tunnels and managing to get from the Houses of Parliament to Tower Bridge in 10miutes is not possible. Sure the tunnels exist but even running as they are would take significantly longer. The trip also from the South to Pentonville Prison just seemed too short as well but is less of a concern.

Finally the pacing does seem a bit off, although I didn't look at my watch once, the flow of the film isn't altogether as it should be.

On the whole a film worth the watch, though I think equally as watchable on the small screen instead of the big.



Oh, and that scene where the girl floats towards camera didn't take place when I went to watch it. Maybe the projectionist decided to cut it out and take it home as a souvenir.

Christmas greetings

Well it has been a while since I wrote my last (and only) post. And i have been watching A LOT of films since then, but in the run-up to Christmas found that I couldn't find time to type. But lots of goodies are on their way, including the Oceans Trilogy some chick flicks, period dramas and festive pieces. And... Sherlock Holmes and Avatar, when I get round to watching them.

'Till then. Seasonal greetings, eats lots of turkey or goose or whatever and have happy holidays!!! :) and don't forget.... It's a Wonderful Life

New Moon

Yep you've guessed it... my first review is of the Twilight Saga's "New Moon". The film is great for what it is: a vampire- werewolf love mesh with a whole load of buff bods and sexual tension to boot. It just that I'm a modern classic vampire kinda girl (one of Anne Rice lore) and though Being Human (a BBC series which I highly recommend) has branched slightly from the vampires I know and love, Stephenie Meyer has done things which are wholly unthinkable... to not put a too fine a point to it... the diamanté skin is terrible. I guess this is more of a rant about the story than the film though so I'll continue.

The film, if you haven't been sucked into the franchise yet, is about Bella Swan who is now going out with Edward Cullen, our Romeo and incidentally a vampire (see "Twilight"). She's just turned 18 which means... legal! however he feels it would be safer for her if he left. Thus there ensues much wallowing (on Bella's part) followed by flirting with "best friend" Jacob, who is a younger and totally stacked werewolf, choosing to spend much of the film topless (no complaints here). And thus Bella must choose between the two. Well that's the bare bones of it. The other plot lines are very good there is a tie over from the first book with vengeful Victoria and we get to meet the vampire monarchy, the Volturi, in sunny Italy, the "king" played wonderfully, if not a little camp, by Michael Sheen.

The film is great especially if you're a girl aged 13 - 17 which I sadly am no longer. I just can't seem to empathise with the film. In fact, the parts which I should find intense or be crying along to I just find laughable (particularly the birthday party scene), which really grates as I quite like the plot and the film itself. There are a few camera shots which are too advanced and one which is positively nauseating but the photography is amazing and the music along to boot. The acting is very well done, though I can't help but notice that one or two of the Cullen clan look like their constipated half the time and the Volturi are campalicious and totally clichéd (a bit like the Théâtre Des Vampires in "Interview with a Vampire"). I find that the only weak links in the film are the two leads Kristen Stewart and Robert Pattinson, they just seem to be utterly unbelievable but maybe that's just the way they were written, or it's that abstinence has too strong a theme it's just unrealistic to be playing characters in such a way, but I guess that can't be helped when the author is a Mormon, and good on her for sticking to her beliefs, but it doesn't really allow for credible viewing as the world isn't lived through such rose tinted spectacles. The down and dirty would definitely have been done. I must admit though the cliffhanger was completely out of the blue it was utterly predictable, leaving us viewers wanting more and yet disappointing as it was such a cliché.

There is much of the ridiculous about this film and though I don't particularly like it I can't help but love it. It's like the little girl in me is just screaming to be let out again, I will definitely watch it again and the next instalment.

Welcome

As it seems I spend more time watching films than studying it seemed only reasonable to put this time (which some may see as wasteful) to good use and write up my thoughts. So here goes. Considering that New Moon will soon be out it is more than likely that this will be the topic of my first real post, but as I'm not a.. what is that quaint term?... a Twihard, I'll try to spare the public and go for something more reasonable.