Movie Review: AVATAR

First of all, let me apologize for the lengthy hiatus; I know how the masses have been clamoring for my cinematic musings, but I am adjusting to a new schedule at work that has left me with less time for writing, not to mention the fact that I saw a whole string of bad movies that did not inspire me to sit down and share my thoughts. Now I'm back. Huzzah.

Secondly, I would like to amend one or two statements that I made prior to the release of AVATAR. Statements like, "The preview told me everything I need to know, there is no reason to see this movie;" " I'll go see it at the Crest when it's three bucks and NOT in 3D; I'm not giving James Cameron one red cent;" "Dammit, 3D!"; and "I defy the possibility that this movie will be good."

Brash words, you say? Well, you be the judge: in the last 48 hours I saw the movie twice, was completely drawn into the 3D, and ended up giving James Cameron twenty-six of my hard-earned dollars, rather than the one red cent I said I would never give him. Not to mention the fact that I spent most of today devising a plan that would enable me to see it again tonight. Now, some people may say that it rather looks as though I've gone against my words, and for the most part that is fairly accurate. As far as my last statement, "I defy the possibility that this movie will be good," well, I was both very, very wrong and agonizingly, unbelievably right.

Now, I believe in giving credit where credit is due, so let's start with the the things I liked about the movie: for starters, AVATAR looks amazing. It is one of the most visually arresting films I have ever seen. The world of Pandora is lush and imaginative, and the imagery is utterly breathtaking. Bio-luminescent jungles, 10,000 foot trees, floating mountains, all inhabited by flora and fauna which are equally lush and imaginative. One of my main reasons for seeing it a second time was so I could step into that world again. And while I have always had adverse 3D experiences in the past, something this time just clicked and I am now a fan of 3D. (I will be even more of a fan when directors learn that anything tighter than a 2-shot is wasted in 3D; no more close-ups, please!)

The Na'vi were easily the strongest element of the movie, and their part of the story was what brought me back to the theater two nights running. Their culture and customs were engaging and well-realized, and although I have heard the complaint that the Na'vi are nothing but a pastiche of African and Native American tribes, I have to say "who cares?" Pastiche or no, they feel real and alive in a way that the rest of the movie does not (but more on that later). Also, their literal connection to all life on Pandora was incredibly compelling to me; the idea of direct communication with other living things has always appealed to me, so the scenes of the Na'vi with their six-legged horses and winged creatures made me want to step into the screen and ride alongside them. I wanted to sit under the Tree of Souls and commune with the ancestors, to join their clan and live in their world. Despite the many, MANY other failings of this movie, James Cameron got this part perfect.

And let me say this: Zoe Saldana gave an Oscar-worthy performance as Ney'Tiri, the female lead. When she delivered her first lines of dialogue I actually sat up a little bit, I was so surprised.Saldana's performance came through the CG so strongly that I suspect the raw footage of the actress would be enough to give you chills. Everything about her is so raw, honest, and fierce, that Ney'Tiri emerges as one of the strongest female characters that I have seen in a very long time (and I mean strong in every sense of the word, not just physically).

All right, I've been working on this review for three days and it has come to feel like homework, rather than something I do for fun. From now on, I'm going to write my reviews right when I get home from the theater. I want these to be conversational, not friggen' essays.

Okay, I've talked about the good, now for the bad: EVERYTHING ELSE. Every character apart from the Na'vi is either poorly fleshed out or a ridiculous cliche, and as a result you don't care about any of the humans (even the ones you are supposed to care about). While the story itself is pretty good, the writing is atrocious, with a capital A (Atrocious, James Cameron, Atrocious!) Most of the thematic elements are introduced but never fully realized, or when they are realized, it is in a trite and unsatisfying way. Frankly, there are too many examples of horridness in this movie for me to detail here, but I would love to have a lengthy conversation about it.

The most frustrating thing about AVATAR is that while there is much to love about it, there is just as much to hate, and there is no middle ground whatsoever. If I may make an analogy, watching this movie is like eating a layer cake made of angel food and monkey shit: you muscle though the shit to get to the good stuff, but you have to wonder what the hell that monkey has been eating.

Movie Review: FANTASTIC MR. FOX

This movie would have been great if it was thirty-six minutes long, and even better if it had omitted the maudlin family drama and ponderous existential musings.

As it stands, it was A-GO-NIZ-ING.

Movie Review: A SERIOUS MAN

Possibly the darkest, bleakest, most hopeless movie I have ever seen (and if you know me, then you know that my tastes run to the harsher side of cinema, so that is saying something). I am trying to find a way to view this movie as something other than a scathing critique of Judiasm, but I'm not having any luck so far. Any thoughts on this one?

Movie Review: THE IMAGINARIUM OF DOCTOR PARNASSUS

I usually wait for movies to come to The Crest so I can see them for three bucks, but last night I spent the extra seven dollars to see this movie in a newer theater with a bigger screen (I went to the Loews Alderwood 16; very nice). I am a big fan of Terry Gilliam (I have all of his films except one), and this film looked like a return to form after the egregious misstep of TIDELAND (that's the one).

So, was this the triumphant return of Terry Gilliam? Well, yes and no.

First of all, let's talk about the good: This is a wonderfully imaginative movie, with some of the most mesmerizing visuals I have ever seen. Gilliam has created a remarkable world behind Dr. Parnassus's magic mirror, a dreamworld that feels like a real dream. The imagery is lush and bizarre, wondrous and free-form. I would buy this movie just for the universe contained in the Imgainarium; it's that compelling.

The cast is excellent--a band of relative unknowns, anchored by the legendary Christopher Plummer. Andrew Garfield is outstanding, Lily Cole's weird beauty is magnetic, and Christopher Plummer is, or course, magnificent. The only weak link is Verne Troyer, who cannot act. I know the guys from TIME BANDITS are all pretty old by now, but surely Gilliam could have found a little person with some actual talent.

Heath Ledger was good, as were Johnny Depp, Jude Law, and Colin Farrel. I wasn't sure how this trick was going to work, knowing that it was precipitated by Heath Ledger's death, but it was perfectly in keeping with the tone of the film, and would have been a nice touch even if Heath had survived the entire shoot.

And now for the bad: For starters, someone needs to take all of Terry Gilliam's wide-angle lenses away from him. He has made a career out of shooting distorted, unsettling images with ultra wide-angle lenses (usually in the interest of the story), but now it just feels like he's settled into a comfortable laziness with his visual style, and in this particular film it is a disservice to the story. Most of his other movies are dystopic fantasies and mind-bending nightmares, and the jarring visual style has gone hand-in-hand with the subject matter. But PARNASSUS is not a dystopia, nor is it a nightmare; for all its flights of fancy it is actually a fairly straightforward story, and it deserved a more straightforward visual treatment (at least on the reality side of the magic mirror). Many times during the film I shook my head at the camera placement and thought to myself, "Terry, grow up."

Not only way the camerawork troublesome, but the editing left much to be desired. Actually, it kind of stank. The first 40 minutes were so poorly structured, and the editing so choppy, that I debated even staying for the rest of the film. There are ways to tell a story so that it builds interest, suspense, and dramatic tension, and there are ways to tell a story so that it is muddled and plodding. Gilliam chose the second method for PARNASSUS. In addition, the script was frequently mediocre, and some of the London scenes were directed in such a farcical style (and not in a good way) that I again found myself thinking, "Terry, grow up."

And of course this review would not be complete if I did not discuss the performance of Tom Waits (my favorite guy) as Mr. Nick, otherwise know as The Devil. This was both the best--and most frustrating--part of the movie. It was the best part because Tom Waits was absolutely AMAZING as The Devil, and it was the most frustrating part because thanks to the camerawork, editing, and writing, we barely get to see him.(And when I say "him" I don't just mean Tom Waits, I mean the character.) First of all, Gilliam gives him one of the worst screen introductions I have ever seen--ever--and the flashback where Parnassus and Mr. Nick strike their original bargain is way too short, and comes much too late in the movie.

Then, he shoots so much of Mr. Nick's scenes in tight close-ups that we only get glimpses of the languid, crooked physicality that Tom Waits created for the character (oh, but what glimpses!) It's not so much that his screen time was inadequate, it's more that the shots they used were inadequate. Gilliam used short, quick cuts when he should have used long, unbroken takes to let the character build up some visual momentum.

Frankly, the biggest problem with the movie is that it wants to be about the Devil and Dr. Parnassus, but they shifted the focus too much on Heath Ledger's character, which made it easy to brush Mr. Nick to the sidelines (a real shame, trust me). Now, people who know me and know how much I love Tom Waits' music might be inclined to say I am biased about his role, but I honestly think that someone who has never even heard of Tom Waits would be mesmerized by his performance. My greatest hope is that the DVD will have about an hour of deleted scenes, and that Mr. Nick will be in all of them.

All in all, DOCTOR PARNASSUS was a bittersweet experience. I will say that despite all of the problems I have mentioned, I will probably see this again when it comes to The Crest. If nothing else, I can revel in the Devil and step through the magic mirror one more time.

Don't Worry, I'm Still Here

Just wanted to let my readers (all four of you) know that I will be posting again soon. Coming down from the holidays and working more than usual has put a damper on my blogging, not to mention I am a little bored with reviews at the moment. I am toying with a few ideas for my blog, so don't lose faith--I shall return.

Movie Review: ZOMBIELAND

I caught this one for 3 bucks at The Crest, and while it's by no means a great movie, it was pretty damn fun. The writing was good, the zombie stuff was gory and hilarious, and there were a few serious moments that were completely genuine and moving. Although I enjoyed all of the principal actors, the best part of the movie--hands down--was Woody Harrelson. Watching him slaughter zombies with a grin on his face and a smart-ass comment on his lips was an absolute delight, and it made me wish for a sequel just so I could see more of him. ZOMBIELAND isn't on the same level as SHAUN OF THE DEAD, but I'm glad I got out of the house to see it. Definitely worth a rental.

Book and Movie Review: CHOKE

The opening sentence of the book says it all: "If you're going to read this, don't bother." It's intended as an ironic comment by the narrator, but it holds fairly true for the book itself. With its' themes of isolation, alienation, self-indulgence, self-delusion, self-destruction, gleeful anarchy, and mental illness, CHOKE feels very much like a sequel to FIGHT CLUB, except that this time the narrator has an actual human being wreaking havoc in his life (his mother), and not just a demented alter-ego. So much of this novel is rehashing the same arguments put forth in FIGHT CLUB (the crushing sterility of consumer culture; the emptiness of our safe, sanitized world; the failure of God and all subsequent Godheads; rebirth and re-creation through destruction; etc.) that I wondered why I liked this book so much back when it was first released.

I will say that although I didn't care for this particular book, I thoroughly enjoy Palahniuk's writing style. He often employs short sentences, sentence fragments, and aphoristic musings in his work, not to mention the fact that he is funny as hell. For example, describing a certain type of mental patient that resides on the same floor as the narrator's mother:

"A squirrel is someone who chews her food and then forgets what to do next. They forget how to swallow. Instead, she spits each chewed mouthful in her dress pocket. Or in her handbag. This is less cute than it sounds."

In all fairness, there were many parts of the book that I enjoyed (just now as I was searching for that last quote I kept stopping and re-reading bits that I remembered) but even as I think about the strength of the individual moments, what left a lasting impression is the whole, and that impression was less than stellar. Who knows, maybe you will feel differently.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Well, for a movie based on a book about a sex addict, they sure went out of their way to cut the balls off this story.

Every truly dark and unpleasant element of the novel is either absent from the film or sweetened up to make it more palatable, the flat black humor has been leavened with sight gags and "funny" music, and the character portrayals are soft and bland. (Although Sam Rockwell had the right look and attitude for the main role, he is about ten years too old, and the rest of the cast was so misplaced that I was left scratching my head.) I gave up on the movie after 45 minutes; life's too short.

Book Review: NO COUNTRY FOR OLD MEN

I had heard from several people that if you've seen the movie you have pretty much read the book, and this proved to be fairly true. (I actually credit the Coen Brothers for chopping the dialogue down to the bare minimum, because there were conversations in the book that felt overlong.) Since I saw the movie three times in the theatre and several times on DVD I wasn't able to fully experience the novel on its' own terms, but I'm still glad that I read it.

P.S. I should also note that despite the absence of a post-apocalyptic wasteland, this book is ten times as bleak as THE ROAD. That book, for all its grim imaginings, is about hope in the face of hopelessness. This novel, as the last paragraph makes clear, is about the absence of not only hope, but any order or sense to the universe at all. Harsh.

Book Review: SUMMERLAND

"The greatest stories contain every story."

I can't remember who said that (or if I just made it up) but it is certainly true of SUMMERLAND. Take everything you love about THE CHRONICLES OF NARNIA and LORD OF THE RINGS, mix in a dollop of THE TALISMAN, throw in a bit of THE GOONIES, add a splash of FIELD OF DREAMS, and you've got yourself an exuberant adventure story that will make you feel--and wish--that you were twelve years old again.

I was enchanted by this book within the first half of the opening chapter, and there isn't even anything that exciting in those first few pages. I have come to expect outstanding writing from Michael Chabon (and this book is no exception) but what stands out to me here is that although children are this target audience, he doesn't dumb down the language or paint everything in broad, cheesy strokes to make it simple. Instead, he does what I wish more people would do, which is to trust that kids are smart and can follow a complex story, and will rise to the occasion if he gives them a challenging word here and there (unlike, say, the author of a certain series of books about a boy wizard, who couldn't write her way out of a wet high school newspaper). Chabon borrows elements from numerous sources to craft an epic tale of good and evil, weaving these patchwork pieces into a literary quilt that maintains its uniqueness. SUMMERLAND is storytelling at its' best, and I have no doubt that I will be re-reading it the near future.

Movie Review: THE LIMITS OF CONTROL

"I think it's more interesting, all the things one doesn't know, is more fascinating than the things one does know." - Jim Jarmusch

Based on that statement, THE LIMITS OF CONTROL is the most fascinating movie I have ever seen. Or to put it another way: I have no idea what happened in this movie. I mean, I know the events that transpired, but I cannot for the life of me figure out what actually happened, what this movie is supposed to be about. There is almost no dialogue from the central character (hell, there's barely any movement--he spends half the movie lying in bed, staring at the ceiling) and what little dialogue we get from the characters he meets is cryptic and repetitive, dealing primarily with the sensory memories of molecules and musical instruments. (The underlying message of these conversations is that you carry with you everything you have every done, and the universe resonates with you.) In the last ten minutes of the movie we finally get to see him carry out the task he has been moving towards for the last two hours, but we have no idea why he is doing it. In the end, the things we don't know (everything about the movie) outweigh the things we do know (there are people on the screen) and the result isn't fascinating, just frustrating.

I am a big fan of Jim Jarmusch (I own all of his films) and I have never been put off by his slow, meandering style of storytelling before. In this case, however, I would have to say that THE LIMITS OF CONTROL felt more like THE LIMITS OF MY PATIENCE.

Happy Birthday, Tom!

Do us a favor: live for another 60 years.

Show Review: 30 ROCK

I'm not going to review this show, I'm just going to tell you to watch it. Created by and starring Tina Fey (Hottie!), this is the sharpest, funniest show I have seen on network television in a long time. Tina Fey is fantastic, Alec Baldwin is sublime, and Tracy Morgan is insane. The supporting cast is magnificent, and each episode tops the one that came before. So. Stinking. Good.

P.S. This review only applies to Season 1. I found Season 2 half-hearted and lackluster, and I won't have a verdict on Season 3 until it comes in at the library.

Book Review: MYSTERIES OF PITTSBURGH

As much as I have enjoyed the rest of Michael Chabon's novels (evidenced by the glowing reviews on this very blog), this one did absolutely nothing for me. MYSTERIES is Chabon's first novel, and although there are moments of lovely writing here and there, the fact is that I didn't care about the story, or any of the characters, or anything at all about this book. It felt strained, like he was striving to make the book bigger, to make it more than it is, and as a result everything comes out feeling terribly flat and somewhat dishonest. Believability is crucial to any piece of writing, and there was almost nothing in this book that rang true. (The exception to this is the climactic scene in the novel, which was poetic and vivid and graceful, and which I can't relay to you now for obvious reasons.) Taken as a whole, the book left me feeling unfulfilled, and slightly cheated.

I'm glad I read most of his other works first, because if I had started with this one I might not have bothered with the rest.

Movie Review: THE IN-LAWS (1979)

I first saw this comedy gem back in the day when I was working at Rain City Video, and it has been a perennial favorite ever since. I won't give away the plot (which is delightfully ludicrous and should be discovered first-hand), but I will say that what brings me back again and again is the joy of watching Peter Falk and Alan Arkin play off each other for 90 minutes. These guys are so sharp, and so funny, you literally can't take your eyes off of them. (Apparently, the primary reason this movie even exists is that one of the producers wanted a project that would bring these two actors together.)
Arkin is all forced politeness and pent-up frustration, while Falk is laid-back and charming even in the most dire circumstances. (I also have to say that Peter Falk is, without question, a comedic genius. While many people may only know him from THE PRINCESS BRIDE and COLUMBO, the man is a legend for reasons apart from those august performances.) These guys are clearly having a ball working together, and we are lucky enough to go along for the ride. Do yourself and favor and check this one out--you won't be sorry.

Movie Review: WONDER BOYS

Well, they stayed remarkably true to the book (with minor excisions to keep the running time down), but for all its faithfulness this adaptation fell as flat as a pompadour in the rain.

I will be fair and say that adapting the book is not an easy task: although the plot of the novel is easily translated to the screen, the heart of the story is much trickier to get at. The book is narrated by the main character, which lets us into his mind and serves the story well. The movie is also narrated by the main character, which lets us into his mind and ruins the whole thing. A narrator on the page can say almost anything and the reader will go along with him; on the screen, however--out loud--the same words will come across as cliche and trite. (It doesn't help that every line of dialogue added by screenwriter Steve Kloves is cliche and trite.) Not only that, but the film is sentimental in a way that the book is not, and in the last ten minutes the pithy little life lessons come so fast and so sugary that I honestly thought I might puke.

Read the book, avoid the movie.

Book Review: THE FINAL SOLUTION

Another delightful Literary Yarn from Michael Chabon (although technically this is the first Literary Yarn, since GENTLEMEN OF THE ROAD was published later). Set in England in 1944, the novel centers around a stolen parrot, a mute Jewish refugee, and a world-renowned detective who comes out of retirement to reunite the two. It's a fast, fun read, and I love the fact that the famous detective is never actually named throughout the entire book.

As you may have noticed, I am on a Michael Chabon kick right now, and the thing that strikes me most about his writing is the manner in which he suits his language to the subject matter. In GENTLEMEN OF THE ROAD, the writing is eloquent and the language elaborate, giving the novel a sense of antiquity which befits a tale set hundreds of years ago. In WONDER BOYS, the style is contemporary and the syntax laid-back, just as one would expect from a story set in Pittsburgh in the mid-90's. And here in THE FINAL SOLUTION, Chabon writes in a manner which is exceedingly, well, British, for lack of a better description. It's not just that he uses British terminology--anyone could do that--it's that he adopts the polite distance so prevalent in British novels (or in Britain itself, for that matter). This guy is an amazing writer; I can't wait to start the next book.

Book Review: WEREWOLVES IN THEIR YOUTH

Beautifully
rendered
stories
about
profoundly
unhappy
people.

Movie Review: THE HURT LOCKER

There are three statements at the top of this movie poster, and I would like to address them one at a time, starting with the last one.

1."FEROCIOUSLY SUSPENSEFUL."
That's an understatement, folks. This movie is about bomb disposal technicians in Iraq, and the set pieces in the film are white-knuckle masterpieces. There is relatively little cinema trickery in the scenes where they are examining an IED or working the streets with rifles at the ready, they just put you in the heat and dust with the soldiers and let you feel the exhilarating terror of life or death decisions. These scenes are largely silent (dialogue-free, anyway) and absolutely riveting.

2."A FULL-TILT ACTION PICTURE."
This was clearly written by someone who only watched the preview, because this is not--nor is it intended to be--an action movie. The combat scenes are counterbalanced with scenes from the soldier's personal lives, and this, sadly, is where the movie falls to pieces. The narrative element is so melodramatic, overwrought, and overwritten that I wanted to punch myself in the face. Every time the story shifted away from the field, the movie bogged down like a scorpion under a wet towel (as the credits rolled I wondered aloud if the movie had been three or three-and-a-half hours; it was two). To be honest, I couldn't even tell you the narrative is about because it was so agonizingly painful to watch that my brain switched off in a desperate act of self-preservation.

3."A NEAR-PERFECT MOVIE."
Not even close, guys, for all of the reasons I mentioned above (and more, but why kick a dead horse). If it had been an hour and twenty-six minutes long and had only the loosest narrative thread to connect the men to one another (think THE THIN RED LINE), I would have agreed with this one. But as it stands? No way.

I will say, that for all its flaws, there are scenes in this movie that are absolutely astonishing, and worthy of acclaim: every single moment in the field; a scene between a soldier and a young Iraqi boy lingers in my memory; and for the rest of my life I will look at Capri Sun juice bags with a certain reverence. In the end, that is what makes this movie such a compelling frustration--it sticks with you, and you really want to see it again, but only if you have the ability to fast-forward.

Book Review: WONDER BOYS

I remember seeing the movie many years ago and wondering what the book was like, and I also remember wondering why people thought Katie Holmes belonged in the movies. I still wonder about that. Anyway, I was browsing at the library when I came across this one, and recalling my recent enjoyment of GENTLEMEN OF THE ROAD, I decided to give it a shot.

And I was not disappointed. Michael Chabon's second novel is a joy to read and funny as hell, and his characters are utterly compelling (although in this novel, very few of them are likeable). The story spins out over a single weekend, and it's hard to imagine how so much damage--emotional, physical, psychological, and automotive--can be crammed into such a short period of time. Grady Tripp, our narrator, is a self-involved, self-destructive pothead (who also teaches and writes), and as he carries us with him on his journey he lays waste to all those around him, especially those he purports to care about. He is a creep and an asshole, a rotten friend, and a lousy teacher.

But he is, after all, a human being, and that is what I loved about this book. Grady is no hero, for sure, but since we are privy to the workings of his mind, we get to see him trying to do the right thing from time to time, even if he screws it up royally. In fact, all of the characters are deeply flawed in one way or another, but they are also vibrant and alive and aggravating and confusing, just like the rest of us. Although I wouldn't want to spend any time with any of these people in real life, I was glad I got to hang out with them for a few hundred pages.

Music Review: TOM WAITS - ORPHANS: BRAWLERS, BAWLERS, AND BASTARDS

This 3-disc set was released in 2006, and it is a compilation of songs which were cut from (or never made it onto) his previous albums. While many releases of this variety (from other artists, that is) are just a dozen or so b-sides and outtakes, this set contains nearly 60 tracks, and not a one of them feels like an outtake or afterthought. Here's a little breakdown:


DISC 1: BRAWLERS
This disc is compiled of rock and blues tunes, and has a number of songs that have been played live many times, but never before appeared on an album. Highlights on this disc include "Lucinda," "Bottom of the World," "Walk Away," and "Lie To Me."

DISC 2: BAWLERS
As the title implies, this disc is composed mainly of ballads and slow numbers, many of which will break your heart. There are some great songs on this album ("Fannin Street" and "Long Way Home" are the standouts here), but this disc is the only one that feels like a bunch of songs, rather than an album. Now bear in mind that they are fantastic songs, but for me it doesn't have the cohesion of the other two discs.

DISC 3: BASTARDS
This is my favorite disc of the set, and is quickly becoming one of my favorite Waits albums. Peppered with spoken-word pieces (including the most depressing bedtime story of all time and a Twilight Zone-esque lecture on insects), some blues numbers, and even a sea shanty, the overall tone is best described as Unrelentingly Dark. Many of these songs feel like they were culled from BONE MACHINE, THE BLACK RIDER, and REAL GONE, but put together they create a potent--if sinister-collage. I love this one, and the last track on the disc ("Missing My Son") turns everything on its ear.

That's it for this morning, gang. I'm going to listen to Tom Waits on the way to work, go ye and do likewise.