Avatar 3D (2009)

--** This blog has moved to www.averagefilmreviews.com, so if you like what you read then please come over and have a look! You can read all the old reviews over there including this one for Avatar. You can of course continue reading this article here though. **--


There is only one film worth seeing in the cinema this week. Avatar. Well, if we are to believe the hype anyway.

Personally, I had been rather apprehensive about this whole Avatar business. I can't remember the last time a film promised so much (well... maybe Snakes on a Plane but that was really a different kind of promise). It's been 12 years since James Cameron made a feature film... 12 years is a long time. Of course that film was the highest grossing movie of all time ($1.8 billion worldwide, just so you don't have to look it up)... but then again, not everyone looks back kindly on Titanic. I actually liked and still like Titanic, but the idea of Titanic in space with a load of blue monkeys? Uh... I just wasn't so sure about that. And of course Cameron also directed Terminator, Aliens and True Lies. All great films but I just don't know how this all fits together.. what kind of films does James Cameron do? What kind of film was Avatar going to be? And there's so much riding on Avatar - Cameron's reputation of course, but the way it's being sold, the future of 3D cinema as well. This film is supposed to push 3D out of kids films and horror and into the mainstream. It was too much, too puzzling, I just couldn't get behind this film wholehartedly.

I'm almost hesitant to tell you what I thought of it. I think you'd be better off if you go see it yourself first. Stop reading now if you haven't seen it... or read on if you've seen it, or if you prefer to hearing other people's opinions before you see a film... it's up to you, just don't say I didn't warn you, but I do think it's one that you might want to keep your ears and eyes closed about it beforehand.

If you are still reading on then I think Avatar is going to be a bit of a divisive one, particularly because I think there's a chance it'll draw in more than a few people who don't watch movies a lot... I hope it does anyway. Which is not to say that I think people who don't watch movies a lot will particularly love it or hate it. Some will and some won't. I just mean that there'll be more people talking about it than your average genre film. For example, I doubt My Bloody Valentine was particularly divisive. Not many people who don't like horror would go to see such an obvious horror/slasher film so it's not like there'd be many arguments about it. Avatar on the other hand is being sold very wide, wider than I think the genre/s fit. I'm not sure exactly what genre it is but it's definitely being sold outside it.

Mind you, the genre is irrelevent in a way... I think everyone should see this film. Not everyone will like it but I definitely think everyone should see it. There will be people out there who just aren't going to buy into the big blue aliens. There'll be other people who just don't like sci-fi. There'll be sci-fi fans who aren't happy because it's not sci-fi enough... that doesn't matter. The fact is, it looks amazing... let me say it again, AMAZING. I could go on with a few more superlative adjectives but it's not worth it, you'll just think I sound nuts. Amazing I tells ya. You just have to go see it. It is worth it.... Even if your brain hates it your eyes will enjoy the feast. I liked the 3D in it too. It was used very effectively, there were a few "coming out of the screen at you" moments but a lot of it was giving depth to scenes, just making things look more realistic. It was different from the other 3D I've seen. Then again, it's a very different film from the other 3D films out there.

Will it revolutionise cinema though? I don't know. First of all, I don't how much this kind of thing costs and let's face it, big budget film making is all about the money. But also I don't know how well it would work with other films. I can see it with the big summer blockbusters, certainly Transformers and Star Trek would benefit from it but I still don't think that it's worth it in every case. I guess it really depends on the maths...

In general though, it's not a great film, it's a good film but not a great one. Or at least I wouldn't put it up there with the rest of Cameron's work. I think in another review, I mentioned that I don't particularly watch individual films in the context of a director's overall work. And that's true. But in this case it's easier to reference his because... well... I'm just finding it difficult to find a genre to review it in. It's not really a sci-fi film. Sure, it's in space and there's aliens all over the place, but it's really just a normal drama set against the backdrop of an alien planet. But, you couldn't compared it to something like... I dunno, Almost Famous or something. I was very much reminded of The Lord of the Rings trilogy watching it. It truly is an epic film. Cameron has created a whole world for us, so I can't say it wasn't great because it was a bit of a corny love story. It's like saying The Lord of the Rings films are just three films about a very long walk. That's just bollocks.

Ok anyway, this film has really got me waffling. Let's get down to it. Avatar is a good film but it's a bit mainstream for my taste. It's not really entirely a straight up love story like Titanic but it's more than half way there. The pacing is reasonable but it's slightly long (about 2 hours 40 mins) and I found the music more than a little annoying (it's comments like that that are the reason you should watch a film before reading the reviews - now when you watch it you might be listening out for the music and this isn't a film where you should be worrying about the music... but anyway...). That said, it's not like the music spoiled it for me, it was just annoying. Characterwise, it's ok. I wouldn't say they are well developed but it's not that kind of film so it doesn't matter. Acting is fine, a bit shaky in places and the best actors probably aren't on screen for long enough - I'm pointing at Sigourney Weaver and Giovanni Ribisi here - but there's nothing painful or shocking about it. The plot is predictable... but again, that's just the type of film it is. Some films are predictable, it's not a bad thing, it's just a thing. It's not awful though, it's engaging enough and generally sustains itself across the 160 minutes or so.

All these complaints aside though it's still a good film. In fact it's almost a great film. I found myself immersed in this alien world and if a film can do that then it can't be bad. It is thanks in no small part to the visual effects but also it's pretty much a full realised world. The Na'vi are a distinct culture and they are a believable culture in my eyes given the world they inhabit.

Anyway I do urge you to go and see it if you haven't already. It does look AMAZING and yes, it is worth it just for that. And do spend the money on seeing it in 3D. This kind of work deserves to be seen the way it was designed to be seen. Just don't expect too much from the story. In that respect it's competent but it's not worthy of those superlative adjectives I didn't use to describe the visual effects.


8.5/10

Share

Moon (2009)

Moon is a sci-fi film conceived and directed by Duncan Jones. It stars Sam Rockwell as the sole inhabitant of a moon base that serves as the operational centre for a team of helium-3 harvesters.

I started this review in this conventional manner as, in many ways, this is a very conventional film. I hadn't heard much about this film except that it's been widely hailed as a return to classic '70s hard sci-fi. I suppose it is classic sci-fi, but personally I don't think hard sci-fi has gone anywhere... last I checked it was alive and well in films like WALL·E, Sunshine and Children of Men. But that's not a criticism of the film, more a criticism of the publicity... and the publicity is relevant, it colours your view of a film just as much as mood or the company you see it in... I try not the let these things affect how I see a film but the fact is, it's impossible.

There was nothing particularly wrong with this film. I enjoyed it really, as I enjoy most of the films I see, especially sci-fi. But then again I didn't feel there was anything in this film that I hadn't seen before. Themes of isolation and abandonment are abound in fiction and this film reminded of quite a few other films I've seen... and I should point out that I haven't seen 2001: a space odyssey or Solaris, the two which a lot of people are referencing in the context of this film.

It was a nice, self-contained, interesting piece of sci-fi story-telling but I can't help wishing that it was a little bit more. It could have been a longer film, or it could have been a good book; I don't know, it was too removed, too tidy, I just didn't feel involved, there was no sense of introspection - which is what I would expect from classic science fiction. I expect to read or watch classic hard sci-fi and think "What would I do?" or "Could we , actually get to that situtation?", this film didn't leave me with any of that. Sure, technically you could ask yourself those questions about Moon, but it didn't bring me to that point and that's what I was looking for.

I tend to criticise then try to find some nice things to say in my reviews, so why break a tradition? This was a good film and Sam Rockwell puts on a great performance. It's an engaging enough story and it's worth seeing if you like classic sci-fi - along the lines of Issac Asimov and Philip K. Dick I mean, as opposed to say, The Terminator or Star Wars.

7/10

Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen (2009)

Just to be clear about things. I loved Transformers. I know there are people who didn't like the first one, to those people I say... don't bother watching this one. If, like me, you thought that the first film was the most fun you've had in the cinema in years, then read on.

Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen is set about two years after the first Michael Bay Transformers film and, as you can gather from the trailers, our friend Sam Witwicky is off to college. I'm not going tell you any more about the plot, personally I wouldn't even watch the new trailer because I thought it looked like they might reveal too much. This made it difficult to go to other movies, luckily that trailer has hardly any talking so staring at the floor worked quite well. But I digress. I seem to do that a lot.

Ok, when I walked out of the theatre after seeing this I was hyped up, I thought it was great. And it is great. If you love giant robot fighting - and I love giant robot fighting - then this is the film for you. But today I'm wondering, how great was it... really.

Well the effect are fantastic. Really amazing. I mean I've never seen anything like it. I thought the robot fighting moved slightly too quickly in the first film and I wasn't the only one. That has been slowed down a little bit in this one. The action still moves at a frenetic pace but you can actually see if it's an arm or a leg or whatever that the robots are bashing. So that's great.

Plotwise, I've seen a lot of moaning on the internet over the last day or two. I don't really know what they're complaining about. I didn't think it was particularly complicated, but in any case it doesn't really matter anyway. In fact I still don't know how they managed to have so much of a plot at all. There didn't seem to be time between the giant robots fighting. So that's grand really.

Where the film falls over slightly is on the characterisation. In the first film we had quite a few characters roaming around and they were all given a direction and a reason to be there. In this one it's as though Michael Bay decided that we already know the various characters that are back so he didn't need to deal with them. And it introduces very few new characters so there isn't really any attempt to build scenes around any connection between any of the characters at all. So that was a bit annoying. It didn't annoy me at the time, but it annoys me now.

It's not a perfect film and it was never going to have the same effect on me as the first one. There were no expectations going into that one, we didn't have any idea of how the movie should be. Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen was always going to suffer from how people thought it should go, based on Transformers, and it's not exactly fair to judge it through the same eyes.

I gave the film a 9.5 on Twitter straight after but I'm going to drop that a bit to an 8.5/10. I'll round that up to a 9 on IMDb though. I had a great time watching it; the action scenes are absolutely fantastic. Could it have been better? Yes. On the other hand it could have been a lot worse and, while I have focused on merits of the action, there were some genuinely good "normal" scenes as well. In fact it's a lot funnier than the first one and I welcomed that.

I have to throw it in really as I'm sure there are people who want to know... How does it compare to J.J. Abrams Star Trek. Well... I did love Star Trek and if I recall correctly I said almost exactly the same thing about the criticisms of its plot. It's kind of hard for me to compare them. Star Trek was probably the better film, in the sense that there was better balance to it, it had all the elements you want, in satisfying quantity and quality... but I can't say I'm overly interested in seeing it in the cinema again. I might watch it on DVD with a friend (I have quite a large HD TV with blu-ray player so it's not that I'm really damning it to TV) but I don't feel a need to pay €10 to see it. I absolutely want to see Transformers: ROTF in the cinema again. On the other hand I've given it a lower rating. At the end of the day, as excellent as it was, Star Trek just wasn't as fun a film. That's how they compare for me anyway.

Course if I was comparing Chris Pine to Shia LeBeouf we would have an outright winner...

um....

...took a while to find that photo...

...what was I talking about again?

Anyway, as always, let me know your own comments!

8.5/10

Star Trek (2009)

I saw this about a week an half before it came out... What would have been useful for people would have been if I reviewed it then. Unfortunately I'm pretty lazy... but at least you're getting it eventually, right?? On with the show.

This Star Trek is actually the 11th film in the franchise, this is of course in addition to the 5 TV series and various video games associated with it. In case you never realised, Star Trek is kind of a big deal.

Marketing types would have you believe that J.J. Abrams is kind of a big deal too. Personally I could take or leave... well, mostly leave, all of his TV ventures and I had pretty much written him off. Then I saw Cloverfield. To my surprise, I really liked Cloverfield. Even now I still think about it - no mean feat for a popcorn movie. Mind you, sometimes what I think about it is how it made me feel so terribly ill... but sure, at least I'm thinking about it. So when I heard that J.J. was doing the new Star Trek film I was... curious. I'd have watched a lot of Star Trek on TV over the years but the only ST film I really liked was Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home. They just never looked that interesting... but a J.J. Abrams one? Well ok.

So it was with these things in mind that I went along to the blue carpet premiere in Dublin. I mention this because one of the things I've noticed is that a movie always seems better when it's free. Also, when you see it with 700 or so other people who are also seeing it for free, that makes it better too. So anyway, sat down in the theatre, Rick O'Shea said hi and had a chat with a dressed up Trekker, they gave out some prizes. Stage set. But was this going to turn out like Indiana Jones? I mean I liked Indiana Jones but I know a lot of people were annoyed about it.

Opening scene. Awesome. And I don't use that word often. Though I will say, I did think the Romulan ship looked a bit like the Shadow ships in Babylon 5. Not that it matters, I'm just saying in case anyone else thought the same - did you? Anyway, a great start to a great film. Star Trek (11) is a success in many different ways; it has an interesting plot, it makes good use of the main characters, it's appropriately funny, there are some great action scenes, my favourite Star Trek character is well represented (and that is important - to me as it will be to many people, albeit they may have different favourites - like I said, Star Trek is kind of a big deal.), the effects are great... what more do you want?

I've heard some people saying the plot is a bit confusing, I didn't think it was but to be honest, it hardly matters at all. This film is just a great ride. Now's probably a good time to mention Chris Pine. That man is going to be all over the place soon. Right now, I would watch him in anything and I'd say I'm not the only one. Leaving Mr. Pine aside, everyone else is strong as well. I had been worried about how Simon Pegg was going to fit into a Hollywood blockbuster. It turns out he fitted in just fine. I could go on but tbh just take it that I recommend this film to anyone who's interested in eating a load of popcorn and seeing an excellent summer(ish) blockbuster film. It's great.

If you don't want to eat a load of popcorn, or even see an excellent summer(ish) blockbuster film, then don't go to Star Trek. I'm a great believer in people watching films that work for them. Just because I say it's a great film doesn't mean everyone should watch. Just like not everyone should watch the fantastic film, Crank. Watch films that you feel you will appreciate. If you absolutely hate sci-fi or you want a film that you can think about, don't go see Star Trek and moan about how everyone was saying it was great but you didn't like it. It wasn't made for you. If you don't mind sci-fi and you just want to be entertain then definitely, go and see it. Go and see it now.

I'm starting to realise that this is a very long review but I still feel the need to ramble a little while longer... I just wanted to make something utterly clear. While I think this was a highly entertaining film, it'll never be a cult classic for me. It's great fun, it'll make stars out of some of the cast and undoubtedly it will rejuvenate the Star Trek franchise... but at the heart of it, it's candy. There's no meat to it, there's no real emotion, there's nothing beyond the sparkle it'll put in your eye for those couple of hours. I had a great time at the premiere but after, I went home to the real world. The old Star Trek had its roots there.

9/10