Cineplexus

No matter what else, Avatar is a game changer.

Avatar ★★★★½

Full disclosure: one of my favorite people on Earth worked on Avatar for months. 80-hour work-weeks. Breakfast, lunch, and dinner on set. I really, really wanted this to be a decent movie. Still, I had my doubts. Big blue aliens? CGI? 3D for Christ's sake? It seemed unlikely that this one would pass muster. So, when I read Roger Ebert's review I was ecstatic. 4 of 4 stars! He compared it to seeing Star Wars for the first time. I send out elated texts to several other hopeful friends.

Then the haters started in. The movie was cheesy. It was overly didactic. It gave me a headache. And okay, no, those aren't complaints I actually read in negative reviews; they are my own impressions of the film's possible weak points. Therein lies the Avatar debate, one that will likely continue for decades. Do this movie's groundbreaking strides in the very fabric of the medium outweigh any foibles in its basic storyline and dialogue?

I have a feeling the decades will err on the side of Avatar's greatness. Take Star Wars as a forerunning example: its hero is whiny, its villain utterly uncomplex (we're talking JUST THE FIRST FILM here, people). But who cares? The movie remains one of the most widely celebrated ever, as much by the general public as by film geeks like me. Or take Jaws, which (film school taught me) was the first true summer blockbuster. It's about a freaking shark! A killer shark! But do we watch it and think, "What's up with that weird grizzled guy?" No. We think "Wow, this is an astonishingly created film. And to think it was made in 1975!" 

Right? Isn't that what you think? Or is that just me?

The fact of the matter is that Avatar has people thinking about entertainment in a whole new way. The story, classically, has clear cut good guys and textbook baddies. It is pretty fantastical, and one must suspend disbelief for nearly three hours to believe that these tribes of giants and their magic tree can fend off the firepower of huge military manned battledroids. There is way too much voiceover, including a few passages so redundant that even the blind could do without their narrative aid. But it takes a lot of energy to even notice these tiny blips on the astonishing and astonishingly real world that unfolds again and again before your bespectacled eyes. The 3D is immersive, not invasive, so each of us in the audience is having our own experience on Pandora. It's a feat that Star Wars Episodes IV-VI can't even boast. Hell, no movie can.

That's why we call it "groundbreaking." No one's built there before.

Cinemaphile 101: Planet of the Apes (1968)

What do you get when you combine all acts of 2001: A Space Odyssey with Inherit the Wind and some over-the top Halloween costumes? A laughably bad movie.  When I reflect on my recent viewing of Planet of the Apes, I am struck with a shocking thought: why did anyone think it would be a good idea to remake this movie? Sequels (this film had 4, plus several TV specials) I can understand - any moneymaker can get multiple sequels.

To put it another way: I thought about making this entry similar in spirit to my post "What's wrong with Revenge of the Nerds? A pointless list." For example, in 2000 years, why is the Grand Canyon on the East Coast? What kind of throat injury leaves you mute until it's totally healed? Why don't the apes' mouths moves? But then I realized there just aren't enough hours in a day. 

 The movie's main flaw may be how seriously it takes itself. This is particularly evident in its more didactic moments. Much effort is spent building an ironic case for evolution, as the ape society Charlton Heston's character, Taylor, discovers is so devoted to its religious teachings that it ignores evidence that the Apes had Human ancestry. Powerful leaders like Dr. Zaius (why are all the elder apes blonde in this movie? Just a thought.) go as far as to try the archeologists that have discovered ancient remains for heresey. In the end, however, the film totally changes gears when it suggests that discovering our true nature is the path to Armageddon. That's what leads to the (admittedly awesome) iconic shot of the top of the Statue of Liberty laying in ruins on the beach. Taylor discovers what spoilers have long since taught us about The Planet of the Apes: it was earth all along.

I lived in a small town from the age of 8 until 18, and my friends and I often visited the local "Antique Mall," which sold a lot of odd pop culture collectibles. As a gorilla enthusiast and a movie lover, I once purchased trading cards featuring the faces and stats (?) of this film's characters (or those of the TV show spinoff, like Urko, Gorilla General).  But the real movie's bitter, inflexible Dr. Zaius is nothing like the hilarious, cute Dr. Zaius I imagined when I gazed at his likeness on my Planet of the Apes trading card! Yet another way this film has disappointed me. 

Maybe the problem isn't with the film at all. Maybe the problem is me. Why ya always gotta be insisting that a movie's philosophical message is inherently consistent, Marissa?! Geez. I guess it's my own damn, dirty human nature rearing its ugly head.

Some thoughts on District 9, ★ ★ ★ ★ ½

Movie Buzz is not always a good sign. While online or word-of-mouth excitement for a film is enough to get many people to the theater, all that build up can lead to pretty big disappointments (Indiana Jones 4, anyone?). Promotions driven by a movie studio's marketing teams can be even more foreboding; cross-promotions with McDonalds and Hasbro can read as desperation moves to the jaded filmlovers among us, wary of anything so forcefully sold.

 I only bring this up because late-summer's sci-fi blockbuster District 9 was one of the most visibily promoted films of the summer, with banners everywhere from shopping malls to subway cars to popcorn bags. They all had the same, cutesy conceit: "For Humans Only," as in "No Aliens Allowed." The popcorn bags suggested that popcorn should not be fed to aliens, while the mall banners suggested that aliens were not to shop there. In retrospect, the whole campaign seems alarmingly tongue-in-cheek for a movie that means such serious business. 

And boy, did this movie mean business. It quietly sneaks its way from mockumentary to horror-action narrative without drawing attention to the change. It drips with political provocation while grossing you out with its biological precision and shock-and-awing you with explosions. I had been warned that the film was gory, but I still went into the theater expecting something campy.

Congratulations, Hollywood Promotional Machine. Looks like you've still got some tricks up your sleeve.

 

Moon ★★★★

When I entered the theater last weekend, I knew nothing about Moon except that it starred Sam Rockwell and pretty much no one else. Having seen it, I'm reluctant now to provide any more information than that about the film, so as not to spoil the experience. Instead, I suppose I'll rely on cryptic, tantalizing hints that  might entice you to find out what this film's all about. Yeah, that'll work.

Sam Rockwell plays Sam Bell the only engineer/operator in a futuristic power plant on the moon that harvests energy and sends it back to Earth on a regular basis for power business Lunar. He's aided and kept company by GERTY, a super-smart talking main frame computer, eerily and masterfully voiced by Kevin Spacey. It's been 3 years alone on the moon for Sam, and it's about time for him to go home... that is, if his brain and body can make it a few weeks longer. This gets to be a trickier and trickier undertaking as the film progresses.

The most exciting thing about Moon is the way it sets up genre-familiar expectations and then thwarts them over and over again. This little trick manages to keep the film scary and suspenseful while the plot moves ever forward. Not bad for a freshman director! Duncan Jones, whom you may recognize as David Bowie's son, has created a unique and interesting movie that sticks with you for days as more of it's secrets unravel themselves in retrospect. It's enough to make me want to start counting the days, Sam Bell-style, until his next film debuts.

Transformers ★★★

Yeah, I know. You already decided. Either Transformers 2 sucks hard-core (the general critical consensus) or it kicks ass no matter what those cocky jerk critics say. So why am I even bothering to write a review of a movie that everyone already seems to have an opinion about, regardless of whether or not they've seen it?

Well, the news is good, if surprising: Transformers 2 is not that bad. While there are a handful of scenes that Michael Bay seems to have exploded all over, particularly during the film's marathon parade of endings, and some seriously annoying, Jar-Jar Binks-y Transformers who won't shut up, it also has genuinely exciting action sequences, really gorgeous visual and audio effects, and some pretty funny moments (as in, moments that are funny on purpose). 

The lesson here seems to be all about expectations. Perhaps the first critics to see the film were able to approach it from a neutral perspective; it's possible that some were excited about the much-hyped film. More likely, they expected it to be awful, and were on their guard for anything reprehensible about the film, thus making all the jokes that fall flat, the ultra-short climactic fight, the annoying (but not, in my  opinion, racist) robot twins, that much more heinous. Whether because of high hopes dashed or low hopes self-fulfilled, the storm of harsh reviews led me and my cohort in cinematic guilty-pleasure seeking, Mikey, to expect a truly awful movie.

What we got, however, was an okay movie, with some very thrilling highs in action, technology, and humor, and some chuckle-inducing lows in robot dialogue, slow-running to dramatic music, and…humor. And what more, honestly, should be expected of a film that states clearly at its outset that it's presented by Paramount and Hasbro?

For all the critical abuse the film's been taking, moviegoers don't seem to be too concerned about how potentially bad the film might be after all – in its first week, it's broken several records, including highest-grossing Wednesday opening, highest-grossing non-opening Thursday and Friday, and the second highest all-time 7-day gross.

So there you go. "Not that bad." And a box office smash at that. All movies should be so maligned.

Side note: I can't end this review without mentioning how truly floored I am, once again, by the sound design of this Transformers film. The score may be schmaltzy, but the sounds these robots make, especially while transforming, are mesmerizing and beautiful here, as they were in the first film. If you don't care about these things, I willingly accept your scorn. But you're missing out.

Terminator Salvation ★★★½

Confession time: I have a problem. I am essentially unable to visit a movie theater without buying popcorn. I can't explain why, but regardless of what I've had to eat that day or what type of movie I'm seeing, I just can't break the link between Movie Outing and Popcorn Eating.

So, standing in an absurdly long line a the local AMC, I found myself in a pickle. If I stayed in the line, complete with apparently just-hired cashier slowly moving about at the helm, and a family of five buying virtually everything on the menu, I might miss the beginning of the movie. If I left the line, I'd have no popcorn to eat during Terminator Salvation.

I stayed in line. Popcorn would be necessary.

It was the right choice. Not only did I not miss the beginning of the film, but it wouldn't have mattered if I had. Despite the fact that a lot of crazy stuff is going down, Salvation devotes little energy to trying to explain it to the audience. There is one exception right off the bat: the film's opening minutes are devoted to explaining that Marcus Wright, the man who would later be abused by SkyNet's efforts to make human-looking Terminators (no spoilers here; that part was in the trailer) was a condemned murderer in his "first" life. I'm sure the writer or director indtended this to be a motivational device for the character, one that would add a touching, bittersweet humanity to his future-machiney self, but the effort was unnecessary. This was not a movie about motivation and nuance. This was a movie about blowing up giant, scary robots.

If someone buying a ticket for Terminator Salvation is expecting anything more than scary robots and big explosions, well, shame on him. We shouldn't let any film's mega-hype – least of all a sequel's – keep us from considering what its intended goal is. And what is Terminator Salvation trying to be if not the final chapter (okay, no proof if it's actually the final one) in a series of decidedly summer blockbusters? It seems logical to expect more of what people love from the Terminator movies, updated to match modern expectations and for what it's worth, Terminator Salvation does that very well. The film, like its predecessors. Tons of action, a bit of schlock, but with enough excitement and tension to balance things out.

As for the modern expections bit, I think it's safe to say that digital animation and motion graphics has come a VERY long way since 1984 or 1991…hell, even since 2003, when T3 was released! The art in this film reflects that in spades, and masterfully combines a gritty, deserted post-apocolypse with impossibly modern machinery, every item as perfectly rendered as if it had really been captured with the camera.

Of course, action, suspense, and motion graphics alone do not a great movie make. They make a fine movie, as in "just fine," and in this case, a fun one. Call me a pushover, but I'm not looking for more from this Terminator or any other.

2 Movies About…Making Bank: The "Summer's" First 2 Blockbusters

X-Men Origins: Wolverine ★★½

Star Trek ★★★★½

In the movie industry, as in so much of retail-based society, seasons start a little early. Christmas season starts at Halloween, Oscar season starts in the Fall, and Summer, the season of the Blockbuster, starts in early May. Summer season 2009 is off to a rollicking start with two hugely anticipated films, each with a very long franchise history to back it up and bring it fans. Wolverine and Star Trek are both examples of mega-budget, sci-fi epics that movie fans love, even those who don't care much about the source material, and they both have already made major bank, thanks in large part to months and months of hype. The films have this in common, and little else. 

Actually, for me, there were some other similarities. I saw both films on the day they opened, at the same theater, where in both cases I had to show the ticket I just paid $10.50 for to a diffident but unyielding usher before entering the theater itself, despite the fact that tickets were already torn on an entirely different floor. Oh, summer blockbusters. We get so excited for you, only to be put through hell for the opportunity to be disappointed by you. At least, this was the case with Wolverine. 

The X-Men franchise has been quite successful at the box office over the years, but scripts and plot development have seen their ups and downs. Wolverine has all the flash and careful art design of previous films, but in terms of editing and storyline, we can mark it in the "downs" column. Ladies and gentlemen, for the first time in the history of Cineplexus, I'd like to issue a SPOILER ALERT.

Now, perhaps you already know that Wolverine (Hugh Jackman, of course) and his ilk (i.e., mutants) are practically immortal. This is made crystal clear to us in an opening montage that finds James Logan (Wolverine-to-be) and his half-brother (the future Sabertooth, played by Liev Schreiber) fight in pretty much every American War ever (nevermind that they're Canadian). But after some funny business in Vietnam, some fun with other mutants (a hit-or-miss bunch that includes some characters that will be familiar to comic book fans, but not to anyone else), and starting a new life as a lumberjack, a man named Stryker offers to make Logan "indestructible."  X2 already introduced Stryker to us as a military madman, and as Wolverine's creator. 

Indestructible. It's not an equicovating kind of word. What's more, the man who uttered it, Stryker, has devoted his life to the study of mutants (and how to take advantage of them). So why, Gavin Hood, why, David Benioff and Skip Woods, why, Nicolas DeToth and Megan Gill, is the entire second half of the movie about Stryker trying to destroy Wolverine? Moments after the newly-minted adamantium-infused Wolverine esapes from the laboratory of his creation, Stryker utters the following words to his #2 man: "Blow his brains out." You JUST coated his skull in unbreakable metal, jackass! Sure, a military higher-up points this out a bit later in the film, but it's too little, too late at that point. No matter how many cool fights, awesome mutants, or fabulous special effects can make up for such a mind-boggling backwards plot "twist." 

I'm not saying I didn't enjoy the film. I'm just saying that I spent several minutues of it yelling at the screen from the audience. Literally. No one heard me. It was loud in there. In a way, I have to thank X-Men Origins: Wolverine for giving me some perspective with which to critique the following week's big blockbuster, Star Trek.

Now, I'm no Star Trek lover; in fact, in my younger years I was one of those Star Wars nerds who's so devoted a fan that she actually stands against the very idea of Star Trek. In college, however, I became close friends with Mary, who I credit with getting me excited about things like comic books and superheroes…and with bestowing upon me a working knowledge of Star Trek: The Next Generation. That said, one hardly needs more than a tenuous grasp on 20th century pop-culture to follow along with this film. After all, it's an origins story – OMG, another similarity to Wolverine! How did I miss that one? – and we're carefully, if quickly, introduced to all the heroes from the original Star Trek throughout the film. While they aren't all fresh out of Starfleet, they are all new to the Enterprise, rocketed into key roles by happenstance and quick thinking, and there's something truly exciting about that.

Come to think of it, what's not exciting about the new Star Trek? I expected some thrilling fight scenes and fast-paced chases. I expected crazy effects and fancy explosions. Check, check, check. super-check. For many, that kind of flash will be enough to brand Star Trek a successful endeavor. But how was I to imagine, based on the fast-paced, hype-tastic trailer pumped through the Web and on to television for the past year, that this film would actually have a carefully developed, extremely complex story? The folks behind Star Trek might have devoted as much care to character development as they did to their Enterprise sets and interstellar motion graphics. Furthermore, they managed to totally rewrite the future of the Star Trek universe; one friend of mine was appalled by this fact, but only one. Personally, I think it's a move of pure brilliance, one that could help this film become a sci-fi classic. And who could forget how super-hot all the main characters are? I, for one, can't stop thinking about it.

Both films obviously spent tons of time and money on development and details, but one of them just gave up when it came time for the script and the editing.  Not so fast, Hollywood; therein lies the difference between a frustrating Pre-Summer Blockbuster and an excellent one. Giving a crap about making your movie good, instead of just about your movie making money.

WALL•E ★★★★★

Just so we're clear: Robots are totally awesome. What other creation, or fantasy creation, can remind us simultaneously of the '50s, the '80s, and the distant future? In the past, I've been dubious of Pixar's ability to entertain me with cute-ified fishies or rats, and time and again the results have been spectacular. I went to the theater expecting a great time from WALL•E. What I got was way, way more exciting.

To a child, WALL•E is a lovable robot with in a fascinating and slightly familiar universe. But for ME to say that this is a movie about cute robots...it's like saying that Animal Farm is book about a kooky pig. There are many things that surprise and amaze in WALL•E.  The realer-than-reality animation or the emotional reactions evoked in scenes with no real dialogue are enough to make this a standout, even by Pixar's high standards.  But what most  sets this film apart, not just as a cartoon, but as modern cinema, is it's eerie and frighteningly believable vision of the future.

You'll have to see the film to truly understand what I mean. If you've already seen it, and you didn't catch the jaw-dropping cities of garbage or the all-too-familiar society of information-obsessed lazy fatties, maybe you should check again. Truly, this is a work of genius.

Jumper ★★

When you go to a movie primarily to see Mace Windu and Anakin Skywalker duke it out, chances are you're not looking for cinematic gold. But let's face it, there are good sci-fi action films, and there are mediocre ones. Jumper, despite its abundance of slick effects and former citizens of Coruscant, falls decidedly into the latter category. Now, before you have time to consider what a huge nerd that last sentence makes me, let's try and figure out just what bugged me about this odd little film.

Essentially, the concept presented to us is a very simple, very cool one. There are people, "jumpers," who have the ability to teleport to any place they've ever seen, even in pictures. The price jumpers pay for this ability is that they are forever hunted by a crew of people who will stop at nothing to catch and kill them. These people are called "paladins," and they are especially fond of the injuring-friends-and-family-members-until-you-reveal-yourself method of hunting.

This sounds to me like a setup for a rather interesting super-hero/sci-fi film. All it needs is a plot. And this is where Jumper falls flat. Rather than coming up with a real story line, the film attempts to turn a simple setup into a whole film. Occasionally a new character or the slightest of twists is introduced, but for the most part we are beaten over the head with this initial premise as these awful people chase each other around for 90 minutes. I was pretty excited that the film spent several of those minutes in Rome, as I lived there for 3 months and was able recognize all the shooting locations, but I cannot even begin to name all of the other places that we are "jumped" to during this cat-and-mouse game. The gimmick loses its immense cool potential as we begin to realize that "gimmick" is all the movie's got.

After describing my take on this film to a co-worker, he disappointedly told me that he'd thought the movie looked "kinda cool." I cannot deny it: Jumper is definitely kinda cool. Hell, it's about the power of immediate and unlimited teleportation for God's sake! So if you're a sci-fi superfan who doesn't mind shallow characters and trite dialogue, by all means, head to the theater! Otherwise, I think you'll be safe waiting for that distant night when this one jumps its way onto HDNet.