Showing posts with label Sam Worthington. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Sam Worthington. Show all posts

Friday, December 31, 2010

Avatar (FINALLY)


Avatar (2009), by James Cameron

Avatar was okay. Good, not great, and definitely a film that deserved to be seen on the format for which it was designed (3D-IMAX). Director James Cameron's first film since 1997's Titanic was released and eventually became the highest-grossing film (until his subsequent film, this one, which doubled Titanic's $1.4 billion gross. DOUBLED IT. THAT'S NEARLY $3 BILLION FOR ONE MOVIE.) The film is set in the year 2154, when Earth's resources have been depleted and the resources of the lush moon Pandora (home to the indigenous, blue-skinned Na'vi) are being mined and shipped back to Earth. Space marine and newly paraplegic Jake Sully (Sam Worthington) is shipped to Pandora to replace his brother, Tommy, who died and was previously part of the Avatar program, in which specially-designed human/Na'vi hybrids are mentally controlled through the aid of MRI-like machines. Jake is sent to accompany the Avatar program leader, Grace (Sigourney Weaver), in studying and trying to gain the trust of the Na'vi, as well as secretly gather intel for Colonel Quaritch (Stephen Lang), who is in the employ of corporate leader Parker Selfridge (Giovanni Ribisi) to help gather the valuable resource unobtainium. Jake then gets lost and it is only with the aid of Na'vi princess Neytiri (Zoe Saldana) that he is able to survive the harsh jungle environment of Pandora. Eventually, Jake is forced to prove his worth as one of the Na'vi, and must choose between helping Quaritch, or helping the Na'vi.

That is the entire plot. There was very little to surprise me the first time I saw the film. Technically, the film is absolutely perfect: the CGI and motion capture are extremely well done (although not as ground-breaking as either Jar Jar Binks was back in 1999, or the quantum leap that was Gollum in 2002), and the utilization of the 3D effects was used less as a gimmick and more as a natural extension of the cinematic world that was created. The effect actually added to the depth-of-field of the screen (the first shot of Jake Sully ---bathed in blue light and floating in zero-gravity and pointing towards the screen, where a single drop of water floats--- immediately impressed me), and provided a sense of interaction with the screen that became more and more natural as the film progressed. Weta Workshop's engineers (they're the same team that pioneered Gollum eight years ago) have finally managed to perfect computer-generated fire, smoke and (perhaps the most difficult) water (there is a scene where Jake's avatar climbs out of a river after being chased by some panther-like alien, and the effect of his CGI clothing sticking to him and appearing wet actually impressed me more than anything else in the movie...I'm not kidding. Rendering realistic water effects is fucking hard). The effects work and cinematographer Mauro Fiore's lush photography were impeccable, technically perfect, and absolutely beautiful. If every 3D movie were shot with this amount of care and attention paid to the effects work, and if every science fiction film were this beautiful, going to the cinema would return to being an Event. However technically beautiful and perfect the film looks, nearly everything other than the effects work suffers from almost fundamental flaws that ultimately hampered my enjoying the film.

First off, the characters are entirely one-dimensional. Entirely. Quaritch's personality trait is Evil-Army-Colonel. Selfridge's personality trait is Selfish-Corporate-Yuppie. Grace is Jaded-Open-Minded-Scientist. Jake is Gone-Native-Man. At the end of the film, they are exactly the same. The simplicity of each character undermined the overall richness of the visuals and of the social strata developed for the Na'vi. Neytiri and the other Na'vi (Mo'at, Tsu'tey, and Eytukan) have a rich and fully developed cultural history that is hinted at, but those dynamics sadly never add up to, once again, character tropes: the Na'vi are too perfect and so pefectly balanced with their environment to ever really become too interesting; half the time it seemed as if we were observing a diorama of what a civilization such as the Na'vi would have appeared as to our untrained and ignorant eyes, than as if we were truly observing the continued existence of a race that has existed for hundreds if not thousands of years. The film was plagued horrendously with the “white guilt”, and as a result everything about it seemed trite and heavy-handed.

Having said all that, I still admire and respect the film, but merely on a technical level. The script was horrible, with one dimensional characters, predictable plotting, some slight pacing problems, and (despite all the technical innovations that would make the rendering of any thing ever IMAGINABLE possible) rather limited character design. While the overall message of the film was commendable, it still suffered from being entirely pedestrian in its telling, without any real level of suspense or surprise, and the death of one of the major characters added nothing to the story, except to incite Jake into finally acting out against the military (which I guess qualifies as his character arc). The culture of the Na'vi, while rich and dense, seemed too much a metaphor for Native Americans for me to identify with the Na'vi on their own terms; it seemed as if this film were James Cameron trying to present a message with the subtlety of a wrecking ball, where a scalpel would have been the only tool needed to get the job done; had he given the Na'vi a culture that identified them as something unique rather than merely being a tool for pedestrian messaging, I would have found them to be more appealing. However, since he didn't, I was able to make my own guess as to where the story would go...and failed to be surprised when it progressed exactly as I'd predicted.

Science fiction has often been used as a means of expressing or redirecting the concerns or fears of modern culture: Star Trek used aliens to shine a light on race relations, and the Cold War; Star Wars (the first one) seemingly reinvented the mythic hero style of storytelling, while conforming entirely to that paradigm; and so forth. Name a science fiction television show or movie made since The Forbidden Planet (and you can include Metropolis in there too), and chances are there is a plethora of subtext to be examined (hell, even B-movies like Starship Troopers could be examined in like). Even Cameron's own Terminator 2 and The Abyss (still my favorite film by him) could be be examined under several pretenses (which I might elaborate on in future articles. But with most of these films, the metaphor is subtle and told in a precise way, and it feels organic to the story and to the characters. With Avatar, the message seems so sloppily presented that it came across as feeling a bit weird (the scene where Grace is presented to the Tree of Souls, to become one with Ey'wa, always, always, makes me feel uncomfortable, and I'm not entirely sure why), and, at worst, perverts the characters (who become mechanisms in service of the plot). I feel as if there was a point during the making of the film where Cameron forgot how to write the way he used to, or to direct action scenes in a way that raises the stakes considerably.

Comparing the finished film to the original treatment, Project 880, which was considerably more dense and detailed, makes me think that I would have preferred to watch the original vision for this film than what ultimately feels like a CliffNotes version of it. Despite its runtime, Avatar still feels rushed and cramped, with none of the characters taking any time to develop emotionally, or with any sort of real connection to the audience. The audience feels for Jake Sully because he is the one who has the most screen time, not necessarily because he is interesting, or likeable, or played by an actor who has any chemistry (sorry, Worthington...you've still not grown on me as an actor). For a movie that promised (and delivered) so much in terms of special effects and the movie-going experience, it is such a shame that Cameron chose to display all this prowess on such an empty film.

The epic score by James Horner coupled perfectly with the visuals to create an epic, heroic swell to the film, and may have actually been the second-most-enjoyable aspect of the film (number one being, of course, the visuals). Mauro Fiore's lush cinematography (despite most of the visuals being computer-generated) still added a lovely feel of the exotic to the proceedings. The fact that motion-capture has progressed as far as it has since 2002's The Two Towers (or even The Phantom Menace back in 1999, when it really hit the public consciousness) is impressive, and what Cameron managed to do with the technology is worthy of praise. But, again, it boils down to one simple thing that made this film work as a story....

...the plot just sucked. It was awful. None of the character beats were surprising, and the fact that it was so predictable and rote made the characters that much less interesting; half the time I was waiting for the inevitable plot twist which would cause the character to change. The characters' decisions failed to feel real, as if service was being paid to the characters as people, and not as plot mechanisms, and for that reason I just couldn't give a rat's ass about anyone. And when you think about the ending of the film, it narrows down to a human coming to an alien world and showing the aliens how to navigate their own culture, tame their own world, and become better warriors than they ever could aspire to be (only after he'd learned everything there was to learn about them), and be the only hope to band them all together in order to rid their world of other humans (whose victory at the Hometree was guaranteed by....the same human outdoing them at everything). Also, once the technologically-superior humans are beaten and sent off Pandora, what's to stop them from just sending more ships, more men, and larger weapons? It seems a rather hollow victory in the long-run.

Avatar is a visually beautiful, lush film that fully utilizes the technical potential of 3D, motion-capture, and computer-generated imagery. As a story and a film, it falls apart, and in a few years, when this very pioneering filmmaking technique is used in every blockbuster film, it'll be sidled alongside films like The Jazz Singer or The Birth Of A Nation: very finely-crafted films that are important on a historical sense, but don't really add up to all that much when you finally get around to seeing them (I've gotta say, for a talkie, The Jazz Singer has an awful lot of inter-title sequences). It's the technical achievement and talent brought aboard that matters, but it's merely to inspire the newer generation of filmmakers to take those tools and use them in more interesting ways. How Avatar, a film that was expressly designed for 3D IMAX viewing, will play on a 2D home-theater system is another question entirely: does it live up to repeat home viewings?

Avatar, for the time being, is a beautiful time and a fun ride, like a roller coaster: exciting, fun, and a true experience, but you can see all the twists and turns a mile away, and you're stuck in a chair full of people you'll never think about again in your life.

Monday, June 1, 2009

Terminator Salvation

Terminator Salvation (2009)

This movie sucks.
I don't even want to put the trailer up.
I would leave it at that and let it slowly die into a painful memory, but I can't allow that. This is a movie I had promised myself I wouldn't see, but wound up seeing for the following reasons: 1. I had time to kill; 2. I had brain cells to kill; 3. I was visiting a friend and we wanted to see a movie we could make fun of; 4. As much as I love Star Trek, I think seeing it four times would be too much; and 5. the only other movie I would want to see now, Up, is one I'd like to see with the lady. But now that I've seen it, I have to talk about it and why it just fails.
Nothing about this movie intrigued me. The concept (John Connor, a relatively blithe character in the second Terminator film, and a relatively annoying character in Terminator 3) is now played with the usual brooding and screaming and sullen moroseness that is characteristic of Christian Bale's style of "serious" acting. Director McG drops the ball early on in the film, shifting the narrative focus from Sam Worthington's guilt-ridden tragic hero Marcus Wright to Bale's theatrical and scene-stealing (and not in a good way) John Connor.
The Connor portrayed in this film is waaayyyy too strong for someone who is 1. human and 2. the survivor of not one, but two previous attempts on his life. Nick Stahl's interpretation of the character (as a whiney, near-manic character) made more sense than Bale's unemotional, distant, nearly indestructible leader of the human resistance (for example, take the final battle between Connor and the T-800 in the terminator factory: Connor gets thrown through glass, into metal doors which wind up dented and destroyed, and burnt by the molten hands of the terminator; oh, and he gets impaled through the heart and still manages to survive. What is this? Die Hard 4?) I would expect that someone who had to fight off two terminators while just a teenager would have some issues....but nope. It's just a typical day for Mr. Connor.
Bale's insistance on augmenting Connor's role in the film is one of the many flaws this movie possesses. The original screen story had previously centered on Marcus Wright and Kyle Reese (as played by Anton Yelchin, who between this and Star Trek has an aptitude for mimicing popular sci-fi characters), and how their relationship grows (which would have been infinitely more interesting than watching Bale shout into a CB radio).
As per Devin Faraci's breakdown of the original script as compared to the finished film over on CHUD.com last week, the problems with the film began when Mr. Bale started to make Connor the main character and sidetracking the Wright and Reese characters. By doing that, the emotional investment in either character is diminished (and that, for me, was so apparent that I wound up not caring about anyone or anything that happened in the film). Connor, in the original draft, was not to be seen until the scene in the film, keeping him a mysterious figure in the story and making his reveal that much more dramatic. Instead, the opening scene features some aerial attack, and a helicopter landing on the exoskeleton of a terminator, which is then shot in the head by.... (*big dramatic reveal*) John Connor! Only we've seen that money shot in every single preview. And at this early point in the film, Connor has done nothing to garner such an "epic" shot. In fact, in the last film he was kept alive by a robot from the future just to ensure that he survives judgment day.
Marcus Wright (as played by Sam Worthington) would have fared a lot better had the movie focused solely on him. Perhaps his MO would have been more clear, but in this version he's just a convict donating his executed body to science in order to redeem himself for the death of his brother and two cops (though it's not clear that he killed them, just that he's responsible). We learn of this in the opening scene, as he's talking to a cancer-ridden Helena Bonham-Carter (wasted as talent, and giving woefully dreadful line readings. C'mon Ms. Carter! You're way better than that!). Clumsy dialogue aside (and this dialogue is Clumsy. That "So that's what death tastes like line" seemed so out of place I just felt like asking the character what the fuck he was talking about), this scene sets up the "shocking" reveal about Marcus later in the third act (surprise: he's a cyborg but doesn't know it. Too bad the second trailer ruined that reveal also) and gives him essentially all of his backstory. However, Worthington sells the character as best he could, putting his all into it and actually making me half-care about what happens to him.
Yelchin's Reese fares a lot better, as he was the most interesting character in the whole movie (and that remains even if you haven't seen the first terminator movie). While Yelchin is able to mimic original actor Michael Biehn's trait's, his character is the only one given anything resembling an arc (and even then it's cut off in the last act). And while it was obvious from the beginning of the movie that he would wind up safe and sound, there were still several moments where I wondered...nah. I'm kidding. I wasn't once thrilled or held in suspense over what was happening, but Yelchin sure was likeable (despite that stupid mute kid Star who does NOTHING but conveniently reveal pieces of equipment that the characters just so happen to need at the exact moment they need them. I was actually rooting for that kid to kick the bucket.)
The female characters are treated with even more disdain. Bryce Dallas Howard is absolutely wasted. Completely. She plays Connor's pregnant physician wife, despite the fact she does nothing with her skills and nothing is done with the fact that she's pregnant (hell, even a cliched, "this baby is the future of humanity bullshit" speech from Connor would have at least given the impression that he cares about her.) Instead she' background fodder, a pregnant woman waiting for her husband to return safe and sound she wouldn't have to become an active part of the story (and trust me, any doctor could have performed that open-heart surgery at the end of the movie. Nothing is even made of that: hell, make her the last person in the area with open-heart-surgery-skills. Something interesting, please!)
Moon Bloodgood. No comment. Despite the fact her character seems like she was rejected from the Charlie's Angels movies, she's absolutely beautiful despite the fact she's spent X number of years fighting robots. (and a nitpick: do you think in a future where humans are a relative endangered species that members of a tiny pocket of resistance would actually execute a woman for something like freeing a friendly cyborg?) Her character is supposed to be the Linda Hamilton of this film. The Sarah Connor of this film. Too bad Bloogood that Linda Hamilton's femininity was never viewed as being more important than her character. Sarah Connor was never a woman who happened to be a strong protaganist; she was a strong, bad-ass hero who just so happened to be a woman. And she got hurt, she bled, she made mistakes and had lapses in judgment. Just as we all do.
No one in this film, aside from Marcus (and even then in small instances) seems "human". There is no emotion. No humanity. There is nothing here for me to care about. McG can direct an action sequence in a competent manner (there is a single-shot sequence where Connor climbs into a helicopter, escapes a massive explosion, gets shot down by a terminator, crashes upside down, and climbs out that was impressive), but there's no emotion. The hunter/killer chase in the second act, where Marcus, Reese and Star try to outrun two motorbike terminators, wasn't thrilling at all because I'd just barely gotten to know any of the characters and didn't know which one to root for (Connor? Wright? Reese?) Without any emotional connection it's just a bunch of loud noises and explosions.
McG allowed himself to acquiese to Mr. Bale's insistence on making Connor the central character, and as a result the film suffers horribly: the script feels rushed and has too many plot holes to even list here (I'll try to add some at the end of this review); the characters are hollow and given little to no backstory, which makes them uninteresting; the action beats were uninteresting; the dialogue feels clumsy and forced; trademarks of the series just seem thrown in to remind the audience, "Hey! You're watching a terminator movie!"; and even the music seemed lazy and horrible (this is easily Danny Elfman's worst score)...hell, even the opening credits and two-minute long typed prologue were horrible. Nothing felt thrilling or exciting: not even the reveal of digital 1984-era Arnold Schwarzenegger at the end battle (yet another Terminator film ends in a battle in a factory).
If James Cameron were involved, he would have made at least a half-decent film that at least had characters I cared about and a plot (say what you want about his films, but Mr. Cameron always has fully-formed characters, even if their arcs are cliched as in Titanic). But he's divorced himself from the Terminator franchise, and maybe he's right to do so. To me, this series ended with Terminator 3 back in 2003, and I'm happy to let it end. Fuck this movie. It wasn't even worth making fun of, as it seemed to make fun of itself. I almost feel bad for the people who gave their all for this film...but they'll still have many other films to work on in the future. There are better man-versus-machine movies out there (hell, even the Matrix sequels does it better.) And why do these types of movies require an angry black man named Barnes (in this case played by Common)?
I don't even want to talk about the script, cinematography, or score here....I'm done...

Maybe I should have seen Star Trek for a fourth time...

Plot Holes:

1. No explanation given as to why SkyNet was rounding up only some humans, but killing others (the commercials make it clear that SkyNet was trying to replicate human flesh so as to send the T-800s back in time, but there was no mention of this in the film, nor of the time-travel technology).
2. Why would SkyNet have computer consoles and interfaces designed for use by humans if humans are to be wiped out?
3. Once SkyNet recognized Kyle Reese (something it does OVER and OVER again) why does it not just kill him? Without Kyle Reese, there is no John Connor, and without John Connor there is no resistance. Just (*bam*) one bullet to the head. No human resistance.
4. On a similar note, once SkyNet has both Connor AND Reese in its headquarters, why not KILL THEM both? They're in the CENTER of SkyNet (robot city), in the CENTER of a factory BUILDING robots, and they send one (1!) unarmed T-800. Why not send in 100 hunter/killer with guns built into them? I mean, they could just make more robots if they fail (which they can't because they have GUNS attached to them). Hell, blow up the whole building. More robots can be built.
5. Why would the characters allow Marcus to sacrifice himeslf to save Connor? There isn't ANYONE else willing to give up their heart to save the "prophesized" savior of humanity? I mean, a friendly cyborg would be great to have as a bodyguard for the savior of humanity. Not only that, but Marcus could infiltrate robot territory because he's recognized as one of them: he could run in and plant bombs for them, for Christ's sake!
6. How could Connor drive the motorcycle terminators? They don't have handlbars, brakes, or a seat. Right?
7. Why is NOTHING done with Bryce Dallas Howard? Or Helena Bonham-Carter aside from establishing that they're, respectively, pregnant and cancer-ridden?
8. Why the fuck is Star mute? Why make a character mute but not do anything with that trait? Why not write a scene where she was the only one who could warn someone of danger, or where she meets Connor and gives her first line, even a humorous (like in One Flew Over The Cuckoo's Nest's Chief?)
9. Since when is the T-800 so indestuctible? It gets molten metal poured all over it but still manages to function perfectly.
10. Why would SkyNet put Marcus' control chip in a place where A. he somehow knows where it is and what it does, and B. in a location where he can so easily remove it?
11. How did Marcus get healed after infiltrating SkyNet and before receiving the expository monologue by digital Helena Bonham-Carter? And why was he healed? If he was designed to lure Connor to SkyNet (which is FUCKING STUPID...see #'s 3 and 4), then his mission is over. Why heal him up again?

Christ...that's 11 points too many for a film to overcome...sadly it doesn't. There are too many more holes to go on. I'm finished.