Movie Review - Avatar

What can I say about "Avatar" that hasn't already been said? From the $250+ million budget to the ten years of work that director James Cameron put into his new epic, "Avatar" entered film lore before it even opened. But when it did come out, all of the hype was met with positive reviews. I was a little bit skeptical that a film that was made with such a heavy reliance on special effects would be able to stand as a great film. Upon seeing it, I can say that "Avatar" is one of the best films of the year.

The story of "Avatar" begins with Jake Sully (Sam Worthington), a Marine who has been paralyzed from the waist down. When his twin brother dies, Jake takes his place as one of the members of a scientific team that is being used to diplomatically deal with the Na'vi, the large blue-skinned peaceful people of Pandora. He becomes an operator of his own Avatar, a genetically engineered Na'vi-human hybrid controlled by genetically matched human operators. As Jake becomes accepted into the Na'vi and falls in love with Neytiri (Zoe Saldana), the humans decide that military force is necessary in order to move the Na'vi and claim what they came to Pandora for: unobtanium. However, when Jake, who was initially sent in to give the military information on the Na'vi, chooses to help the Na'vi instead and the war for Pandora begins.

The special effects of "Avatar" are what everyone wanted to see, and they are no disappointment. They world of Pandora is easily the most realized film world since Middle-Earth was re-created in "The Lord of the Rings" trilogy. The difference in the case of "Avatar" is that not only are the creatures and the environment computerized but so are the inhabitants. The Na'vi are the most technically amazing creatures to be seen on film since LOTR's Gollum. Once the world of Pandora is revealed to the audience there is no going back. You are entered into a vision a decade in the making that has been brought beautifully to life by a master filmmaker. This is where the power of the film truly lies. One of the great functions of film is that it can engulf you in a world that can be totally different from our own and yet be so real. Pandora is such a place. By the time the film concludes there is no question that Cameron has succeeded in completely engaging the audience and emotionally investing them in this fantasy realm.

The rest of the film seems almost secondary to the astonishing visual effects, but CGI alone can't create a great film. Admittedly the weakest part of "Avatar" is the story. It has a few cliches which at times can detract from the greatness around it. However, these are overcome by the involving world in which they take place. The acting serves the film well, even if the screen time for the actual actors is at times outweighed by their animated counterparts. The cinematography is excellent, the score is wonderfully affecting, and the editing is pitch-perfect, especially in the film's stunning climax.

The wait for "Avatar" is over, and I can easily say that it is worth the wait. With special effects and CGI the likes of which we have never seen and direction that can only be expected from a skilled filmmaker like Cameron the film soars into the ranks of best films to come out in 2009. A trip to Pandora is a must for all movie lovers, because once there you too will see just how real of a world Cameron has created.

Movie Review - Sherlock Holmes

The story of Sherlock Holmes is legendary. He is known throughout the world for his unorthodox brilliance and captivating presence. So when news hit that Guy Ritchie was going to direct a new film about the world's most famous detective, you had to wonder if the former Mr. Madonna would be up to the task. After seeing "Sherlock Holmes", I am pleased to say he certainly was.

The story finds Holmes (Robert Downey, Jr.) several months after his last case. He is disheveled and unruly, and his partner Dr. Watson (Jude Law) is leaving their home to be with his fiance. However, Holmes is thrown back in the game when Lord Blackwood (Mark Strong), a mysterious and powerful man with ties to the occult, rises from the dead. With the help of Holmes' old flame Irene Adler (Rachel McAdams), the two team up once again to take on a foe who seems to have magic on his side.

Purists may cry foul when seeing the legendary Sherlock Holmes become an intelligent version of an action hero in the new Guy Ritchie movie, but Ritchie has done an excellent job of keeping his visual fast-paced style while also including the intelligence and mystery that has become second nature to any Holmes story. In fact, the blending of this intelligence and action is what makes this film stand above the typical blockbuster fare. Several times during the film we are given a look inside Holmes' head, seeing the next several moves he will make. This visual style works to great effect as it engages the audience in the method behind the brilliance.

I don't think anyone could have more perfect for the role of Sherlock Holmes than Robert Downey, Jr. His roguish charm has helped re-endear himself to the public through films such as "Iron Man", and in "Sherlock Holmes" he is no different. Downey, Jr. is both tough and intelligent, and his mannerisms are spot on. As Dr. Watson Jude Law brings a rationality that is matched by his loyalty to Holmes. He knows that a more stable life is waiting for him, but he follows Holmes into adventure and danger with a reluctant loyalty that in the end is never second guessed. The chemistry between Downey, Jr. and Law is impeccable. Strong is frighteningly effective as the evil Lord Blackwood, while McAdams is fine as Holmes' love interest.

"Sherlock Holmes" is the type of film you would expect to see come out during the summer: it's got action, adventure, suspense, romance, and above all a high entertainment factor. That it came out on Christmas is a bit surprising, but the film is able to succeed during the heavy handed Oscar bait season by providing something that the Oscar hopefuls can be a little short on: pure fun.

Movie Review - Nine

When I first heard about the movie "Nine", I eagerly placed it atop the list of films I most wanted to see in 2009. And why shouldn't I? Directed by Rob Marshall, who struck Oscar gold with "Chicago". An A-list cast including 6 Oscar winners - Judi Dench, Penelope Cruz, Nicole Kidman, Marion Cotillard, Sophia Loren, and the always accountable Daniel Day-Lewis (whose turn in "There Will Be Blood" is my personal favorite performance in all of film). This movie has all of the parts to be a winner. A big winner. But after walking out of the theater I couldn't help but feel underwhelmed.

The plot centers on Italian director Guido Contini (Day-Lewis), who is experiencing a mid-life crisis as he prepares to start shooting his next film. His past few films have been flops and he has no script; better yet, he has no inspriation to start one. To make matters worse, Gudio has to juggle the many women in his life - his wife (Cotillard), his muse movie star (Kidman), his mistress (Cruz), an American reporter (Kate Hudson), and his deceased mother (Loren). Dealing with all of this at once, Guido is forced to discover what he truly wants and what he must do to get it.

My first problem with "Nine" has to do with most of the Oscar-winning cast. This is not to say that this is a poorly acted film; far from it, I felt that there were very few faults to be found with any of the performers. However, when you are given the actresses that Marshall has in this film it would be a crime to underuse them. Unfortunately that is what happens. The women in Guido's life come and go, with their impact seeming to fade upon their exits. It is true that dividing screen time among this many actresses is difficult, but the end result leaves something to be desired.

As I stated previously, the acting in this film is excellent. The film centers on Day-Lewis, and once again he is able to carry it. Guido is a man of charm but this charm is used to get him what he wants: an actress for a film, a mistress to sleep with, some more time while he works (or rather doesn't work) on his script. He is not a very likable character; in fact, he's pretty repulsive. Day-Lewis is able to show not only the ugly underbelly of the character but also the charm through which Guido seems to so many to be a brilliant man. It doesn't hurt that he can sing, too. Cotillard is the female standout. Her charcter is given the most emotion and what a job she does with it. Luisa is a woman who never sees her husband. He is always working or off with another woman and she's been hurt to the point of being fed up. As with every other actor in the film Cotillard sings quite well. Dench, Kidman, Hudson, and especially Cruz were all wonderful, but their lack of screen time was upsetting given their talents.

Another disappointing feature of "Nine" is its lack of emotional attachment to the audience and musical numbers that, while good, were not as memorable as some might wish for. I am a fan of Marshall's "Chicago", a movie that I found deserving of its Best Picture win in 2002 despite great competition. That film was filled great songs, but more importantly it had a story that fit well with these songs and ultimately rewarded the audience. "Nine" can't say that. The movie left me strangely emotionless, which, given the emotions that are running amok in Guido's life, is not a good sign. I was hoping for something that would last but instead was given a hectic look at the life of a man losing everything. Who's to blame? Not the cast, I would say. Maybe Marshall for direction that I found less than great. Maybe the screenwriters for a script that was lacking at times. Regardless, "Nine" is an ambitious film that, while good, comes up short of being what it should have been: great.

My 2010 Golden Globe Predictions

Note: I have not seen all of the films/performances, so my predictions shouldn't be taken too seriously. Also, I may be changing these as the awards get closer.

Best Motion Picture -- Drama
Avatar
The Hurt Locker
Inglorious Basterds
Precious
Up in the Air (WINNER)

Best Performance by an Actress in a Motion Picture -- Drama
Emily Blunt, The Young Victoria
Sandra Bullock, The Blind Side
Helen Mirren, The Last Station
Carey Mulligan, An Education (WINNER)
Gabourey Sadibe, Precious

Best Performance by an Actor in a Motion Picture -- Drama
Jeff Bridges, Crazy Heart (WINNER)
George Clooney, Up in the Air
Colin Firth, A Single Man
Morgan Freeman, Invictus
Tobey Maguire, Brothers

Best Motion Picture -- Musical or Comedy
(500) Days of Summer (WINNER)
The Hangover
It's Complicated
Julie & Julia
Nine

Best Performance by an Actress in a Motion Picture -- Musical or Comedy
Sandra Bullock, The Proposal
Marion Cotillard, Nine
Meryl Streep, It's Complicated
Meryl Streep, Julie and Julia (WINNER)
Julia Roberts, Duplicity

Best Performance by an Actor in a Motion Picture -- Musical or Comedy
Matt Damon, The Informant
Daniel Day Lewis, Nine
Robert Downey Jr., Sherlock Holmes
Joseph Gordon Levitt, (500) Days of Summer (WINNER)
Michael Stuhlbarg, A Serious Man

Best Performance by an Actress in a Supporting Role in a Motion Picture
Mo-Nique, Precious
Julianne Moore, A Single Man
Anna Kendrick, Up in the Air (WINNER)
Vera Farmiga, Up in the Air
Penelope Cruz, Nine

Best Performance by an Actor in a Supporting Role in a Motion Picture
Matt Damon, Invictus
Stanley Tucci, The Lovely Bones
Christopher Plummer, The Last Station
Christopher Waltz, Inglorious Basterds (WINNER)
Woody Harrelson, The Messenger

Best Animated Feature Film
Coraline
The Fantastic Mr. Fox
Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs
The Princess and the Frog
Up (WINNER)

Best Director -- Motion Picture
Kathryn Bigelow, The Hurt Locker
James Cameron, Avatar (WINNER)
Clint Eastwood, Invictus
Jason Reitman, Up in the Air
Quentin Tarantino, Inglorious Basterds

Best Screenplay -- Motion Picture
Up in the Air (WINNER)
It's Complicated
District 9
The Hurt Locker
Inglorious Basterds

2009 Movies

My Top 10 Films of 2009 (so far):

1. Up In The Air
2. Avatar
3. District 9
4. The Hurt Locker
5. Up
6. (500) Days of Summer
7. Inglorious Basterds
8. An Education
9. Sherlock Holmes
10. Star Trek


Movies I need to see:

Invictus
Crazy Heart
A Serious Man
A Single Man
The Road
The Messenger
Where the Wild Things Are
The Last Station

Movie Review - Inglorious Basterds

I've now seen Quentin Tarantino's newest film "Inglorious Basterds" twice, and I'll admit: I wasn't the biggest fan of it after my first viewing. I found it pretentious, overlong, and generally muddled. Upon seeing it a second time, however, my stance has softened. Though I'm reluctant to call it a masterpiece like some have done, it is a high quality film that packs both an artistic and entertaining punch.

There are two converging story lines in "Inglorious Basterds". The first follows Shoshana (Melanie Laurent), a French Jew forced into hiding by the Nazis, led by "Jew Hunter" Colonel Hans Landa (Christoph Waltz). Shoshana owns a cinema in which the German plan to show a new film, and all of the important Nazi leaders, Hitler included, will be in attendance. Meanwhile, Lieutenant Aldo Raine (Brad Pitt) and his group of Basterds are terrorizing Nazis in France. The two stories collide into a brilliantly violent ending.

When it comes to screenplays, Quentin Tarantino knows how to write a good one - he deservedly won an Oscar for "Pulp Fiction". "Inglorious Basterds" also has a fine script, but there is one problem: the film is oftentimes not in English. I understand why this is, and indeed it is a necessity. But this leads to the dialogue losing some of its shine, which is a shame because when Tarantino is writing it's time to take notice. The pacing of the film for me was a little slow, which lead to it's slightly overlong 2 hours and 33 minutes. The slow pace did work well at some points, however; the first chapter, "Once Upon a Time...In Nazi-Occupied France", is sheer brilliance. The tension created by Landa's meeting with the French farmer harkens back to Angel Eyes in "The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly" or Frank in "Once Upon a Time in the West". The cinematography is excellent ,the score is uniquely Tarantino-esque, and the direction is among the best seen this year.

The acting is a strong point in "Inglorious Basterds". Brad Pitt is hilarious as the tough Southern leader of the Basterds. His over the top accent and perfect comedic timing aid the film a great deal in terms of entertainment value. Melanie Laurent brings a fire to Shoshana to suggests she is not just a mere laday. Her reason to live is to see the downfall of the Third Reich, and when she gets the chance she shows just how tough she can be. Diane Kruger is splendid as the beautiful double agent Brigit Von Hammersmark. But the best acting of the film belongs to Christoph Waltz, who will be tough to beat come Oscar time. His Colonel Landa is just as equally a monster that Heath Ledger's Joker is, but instead of a crazed laugh full of chaos we get a delightfully pleasant smile with an undertone of evil. He is sly, clever and above all hard to resist, making him all the more dangerous. It is a sign of great acting when we come away impressed by the bad guy, and Waltz has absolutely given us just that: a villain we have no problem admiring.

Tarantino has always known how to tell a story, and how he tells it is almost as important as the subject material itself. Think of the structural brilliance of "Pulp Fiction" and "Reservoir Dogs". The man has an abundance of talent. While his newest film surely is fun to watch and is definitely well put-together, it is not a masterpiece. That being said, it is one of the best films of the year both in an awards-worthy and entertainment sense and should not be missed.

Movie Review - Kramer vs. Kramer

1979 is another year that the Oscar haters point to as another example of how the Academy is so often "wrong". Winning Best Picture that year was "Kramer vs. Kramer", a drama that tackled the heavy issue of divorce and custody battles. Also nominated that year was "Apocalypse Now", heralded as a classic and one of the greatest films ever made. While I also share that viewpoint about the latter, upon viewing the Best Picture winner I must say that "Kramer vs. Kramer", in its own right, is a well-made and very good film. Was it the better film? I don't think so. Did it deserve its trophies? Perhaps. Let's take a look.

"Kramer vs. Kramer" focuses on a family in disarray. Ted Kramer (Dustin Hoffman) is a workaholic. He has allowed his marriage to deteriorate because of his commitment to his job. Joanna Kramer (Meryl Streep) is his wife, dreaming of the freedom she had before marriage. Unable to be the stay-at-home mother any longer, she leaves Ted to take care of their 7 year old son Billy (Justin Henry). The father and son learn to adapt to their new situation and grow to love each other more than ever. However, Joanna comes back after 18 months and wants her son back. A custody battle ensues and Ted fights for the son he has come to love so much in the time since he became a single parent.

The acting is what carries the film, and the best acting job belongs to Dustin Hoffman. Far from his showiest role ("Midnight Cowboy" and "Rain Man" catch people's eyes a lot more), he becomes the Everyman whose life has been thrown in a completely different direction. He must learn to become a father to his son, and when Joanna comes back to claim Billy he must fight to keep everything he has gained. Hoffman is utterly convincing and sensational. We grow to love his character as he tries to do something he hasn't been: a real father. Streep is also excellent, but not on the level that Hoffman is. It doesn't help that she is absent for most of the movie, but when she is on screen there is no missing her. Jane Alexander as the family friend Margaret and especially Justin Henry as the son only add to the cast's wealth.

The screenplay, written by director Robert Benton, is excellent. Benton's direction is also top-notch. The topic at the time was far more controversial than it is now. Nonetheless, the film doesn't provide any answers, which in my opinion is the right was to present the issue. While the intent may have been to not pick sides for me it was far easier to root for Ted than for Joanna. This may be due to Hoffman's wonderful performance but it might have been better had the movie been a little more open.

While "Kramer vs. Kramer" may not be the most remembered film of 1979, it certainly was one of the best. Deserving of Best Picture? I believe so, just not against its competition. With Apocalypse Now" coming out that year I think they awarded the wrong film. But I'll leave that up to you to compare.

The Greatest Decade in Film - the 1940's

Moving on in my search for the best decade in film, it is time for me to move onto what is certainly a memorable decade: the 1940's.

The 1940's brought some of the best directors to ever work in Hollywood. The decade saw the emergence of Billy Wilder, John Ford, Orson Welles, and John Huston. Others such as Howard Hawks and William Wyler continued to build upon their impressive resumes. Big name stars such as Humphrey Bogart, Katharine Hepburn, Jimmy Stewart, and Cary Grant saw their stocks skyrocket in this decade.

The first year of the decade doesn't hurt, either. Winning Best Picture that year was "Rebecca", just one of the many great Alfred Hitchcock films. Other nominees included the "The Philadelphia Story" (a wonderful comedy featuring great turns from Katharine Hepburn, Cary Grant, and an Oscar winning James Stewart), "The Grapes of Wrath" (one of four Best Director trophies for John Ford featuring a star-making turn by Henry Fonda), and "The Great Dictator", Charlie Chaplin's first talking film. "His Girl Friday", a classic Cary Grant comedy, as well as two animated classics - "Pinocchio" and "Fantasia" - also came out in 1940.

The year after produced arguably the greatest film ever made: "Citizen Kane". While that title is certainly subjective, the impact of "Citizen Kane" is undeniable and its quality unquestionable. To go along with it that year was "The Maltese Falcon" (a phenomenal first film by John Huston featuring one of Humphrey Bogart's best roles), "Sergeant York", and Best Picture winner "How Green Was My Valley" (the second consecutive film to win John Ford a Best Director Oscar).

"Yankee Doodle Dandy" would be released the following year, as would "Casablanca", one of the most beloved films of all time that also is considered one of the best (and rightfully so, with cinema's best romance between Humphrey Bogart and Ingrid Bergman and a delightful supporting turn by Claude Rains). "Bambi", another one of Disney's most beloved films also was released in 1942 along with Orson Welles' "The Magnificent Ambersons". 1943 did not bring about any memorable films, but 1944 saw one of the best noir films - "Double Indemnity", the first great Billy Wilder film. Also, "Arsenic and Old Lace", a memorable Cary Grant comedy. A lull in 1945 was followed by 1946 and some excellent films - Frank Capra's most loved film "It's a Wonderful Life" (one of the most inspirational films ever made), "The Big Sleep" (a noir combination of Howard Hawks and the power couple of Humphrey Bogart and Laruen Bacall), and Best Picture winner The Best Years of Our Lives.

1947 brought about another memorable noir ("Out of the Past") and another crowd-pleaser ("Miracle on 34th Street"). In 1948 "The Bicycle Thief" (arguably the greatest of the Italian neorealism films) and "The Treasure of the Sierra Madre (yet another John Huston-Humphrey Bogart collaboration) were released, and in 1949 "The Third Man", Carol Reed's excellent thriller, was introduced.


Packed with some of the best films ever made along with some of the most beloved, the 1940's makes a strong case for the greatest decade in film. After two decades of review it is clearly the decade to beat.

The Greatest Decade in Film - The 1930's

This is the first in a series of posts in which I will look at each decade in detail to decided which decade was the best in terms of the quality of films produced. I will be starting with the 1930's.

The 1930's brought about the widespread use of sound in film. After the introduction of speaking in films by "The Jazz Singer" in 1927 "talkies" became more and more popular, and the 1930's was the decade that saw them become the dominant film type. The decade began with "All Quiet on the Western Front", Best Picture winner in 1930 and first talkie to win the prestigious award. Fritz Lang's disturbingly brilliant film "M", featuring Peter Lorre in one of his most celebrated roles as a deranged child murderer, came out the next year.

Charlie Chaplin's two films of the decade stand out as two of the great comedies of all time - "City Lights" and "Modern Times". Adding to the comedic greatness of the decade was "Duck Soup", the pinnacle of Marx brothers' careers. Monster films such as "Frankenstein" and the original "King Kong" set the standard for horror films to come.

1934 saw "It Happened One Night", the first film to take home the five major Academy Awards (Picture, Director, Actor, Actress, Screenplay). The film was also the first of three that won Best Director for Frank Capra in a five year span (the next to being "Mr. Deeds Goes to Town" and "You Can't Take It With You"). 1938 brought "Bringing Up Baby", a collaboration of Howard Hawks with Katharine Hepburn and Cary Grant that is on AFI's Top 100 films. And of course, the banner year of 1939 is considered by many to be the greatest year in film. "Gone With the Wind", "The Wizard of Oz", "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington" - the names speak for themselves. Throw in "Stagecoach" and "Goodbye, Mr. Chips" and the decade ended with a bang.

However, the 1930's cannot be considered the greatest decade in film for the reason that great films were not coming out consistently. The yearly output of classics is lower than the decades the come after it. While we have been given many great films from the 1930's I would argue that this decade is not the greatest in film.

The Greatest Decade in Film

Upon reading another blog about which decade was the greatest in film, I feel compelled to make an argument of my own. For this argument, I will not be factoring the impact that these films had on future films. Merely, I will be making a case for why the decade came out with the best films in terms of quality. I will be making a post for each decade starting with the 1930's and ending with the 2000's. Note that this is merely my opinion and it doesn't actually mean that the decade I choose it is the "best". Also, I have not seen all of these films. I am merely basing my arguments on what has been said about these films. Therefore, critical acclaim factors into this more than my person opinion, at least until the final decision is made.