Movieblaze

Starring: Sam Worthington, Zoe Saldana, Sigourney Weaver, Giovanni Ribisi, Michelle Rodriguez, Stephen Lang

Director: James Cameron

Writer: James Cameron

Cinematography: Mauro Fiore, Vince Pace

Original Score: James Horner

Running Time: 150 Mins.

James Cameron, as we all know, is the self-proclaimed king of the world but which world might that be, not so much the Earth but more the king of actually “creating” worlds, there is no denying the infamously control-freakish director has a knack for immersing his audience a world from the bottom up, whether it be the postapocalyptic future of the Terminator films, an Aliens planet or, indeed a great big (doomed) Titanic sized ship. So it would be prudent to assume that in creating a whole new world (called Pandora) for his latest opus, topically named Avatar, that he would once more succeed in bringing this Pandora to fully immersive, believable and most importantly entertaining, life.

Couple Cameron’s past repertoire with the tools he has at his disposal, most notably a totally new way of shooting in 3D  and hugely advanced mo-cap techniques that put Zemeckis‘ Polar Express, Beowulf and A Christmas Carol to shame, and you should have a product well worth the 11 year wait even in the face of an insurmountable level of hype…

So, does the final product add up to the sum of its parts? Well, to answer diplomatically, yes, and no, you see for all the strengths Avatar has it also has equally as many weaknesses, some you can overlook while others prove too pertinent for even lush visuals to paper over. And what visuals they are and always were destined to be the crowning achievement of Avatar, in creating his Pandora James Cameron has brought to life a world as lush and most importantly realistic as anything you have seen on-screen before, in the same way that Peter Jackson did with The Lord of the Rings, from a visual point of view at least,we are transported to the world inhabited by a vast array weird and wondrous creatures.

It is obvious, even to the most oblivious viewer, that Cameron has spent the last decade crafting this world with meticulous loving care, enhanced furthermore not so much by the 3D element (more on this later) but more the emotion conveyed by the Na’vi, the blue skinned indigenous population of Pandora, always a strong writer of female characters Avatar presents yet another fine example of this, with both Sigourney Weaver and particularly Zoe Saldana’s Na’vi, Neytiri, as the stand out performances. Though kudos must go to Sam Worthington, surely now destined to become one of the biggest A-List action stars following his promise in Terminator: Salvation and now a much more nuanced performance here.

That these three stand out so well is purely down to performance and charisma, and not script, for this is the film’s biggest failing, in crafting Pandora, its look and inhabitants Cameron seems to have neglected to write a script that matches the technical achievement, at its worst it invokes the weakest parts of the Star Wars prequels (no good thing I assure you) and at best it’s simply clichéd and predictable. The story itself is so hackneyed and has a terrible “seen it all before” air about it. and yes the question as to what is truly ”original” nowadays in film remains but there are ways around making things feel not so stale, and injecting something you have seen before with a bit of energy can liven it up. But here the suggestions that we were being faced with Dances With Wolves or Pocahontas in Space, and Ferngully with blue aliens are fully deserved, not so much in a derivative way but more disappointingly.

The best example of this stereotyping comes in Stephen Lang’s villainous General Quarritch, he isn’t an actor lacking in menace but simply written so two dimensionally you can play dot to dot with the plot and his character arc, so badass he can breathe in the usually lethal air of Pandora this is the closest we get to characterisation.

Though to be to down on the film for a lack of good script may seem harsh given its achievements but without substance behind the sheen I simply cannot endorse something on the same level as Peter Jackson’s Lord of the Rings or even Cameron’s own Titanic, which suffered the same stereotyping but overcame with real emotion. Even the final 40 minutes of action fail to hold a single stand out scene, which is gravely disappointing in the face of the fact that a.) this is the who gave us Terminator 2: Judgement Day and b.) the potential that exists in the film’s world, hopefully in the suggested sequel these issues can be rectified…  

On a final note much has been made of Avatar’s 3D, and it is true this is the best example of it yet, however it still has a rather needless feel, given the version of the film I saw was digitally presented the hi-def alone does enough to enrich the world of Pandora and the 3D aspect left me feeling more distracted than in awe by the supposed revolutionary advances, something not helped by the increased hike in price for the privilege of this new technology.

VERDICT

Avatar has a stunning outer shell and there is no question as to the amount of time and effort that has gone into making it look good with or without the 3D “upgrade”, however what lay underneath is greatly lacking meaning that while your eyes will be in awe your brain  will wish that Cameron had spent as much time scripting as he did on the mind-blowing visuals.

Starring: Shauna Macdonald, Natalie Jackson Mendoza, Krysten Cummings, Joshua Dallas

Director: Jon Harris

Writer(s): J. Blakeson, James McCarthy, James Watkins

Cinematography: Sam McCurdy

Original Score: David Julyan

Running Time: 94 Mins.

I feel a double standard coming, yes, I will just have to spit it out, The Descent: Part 2 is at once essentially a retread/total continuation in story from the rather great original from director Neil Marshall, and also a (literally) bloody awful film in the same instant. Though it is what is what makes The Descent: Part two superficially different to its Part 1 as much as what is similar that makes the film quite as downright bad as it is.

Riding on the wave of success from Dog Soldiers (which itself had a sequel ready to shoot and fell through at the last-minute) director Neil marshall returned with The Descent to great acclaim whereby he was deemed the great white hope of the British horror scene. The Descent was a nasty little horror film that played on some of our most primal fears, claustrophobia, the dark, and those oh so creepy of creatures residing in such places, building the tension on a knife-edge it had the kind of bleak ending only us Brits seem capable of carrying off, meaning in America, low and behold, a nice happy-ish ending was tacked on, meaning much of the ambiguity set-up with the main characters hallucinogenic personality was lost. In effect The Descent was just another slasher film to those goddamn Yanks!

Fast forward 4 years and shock horror we get not an out and out cash cow sequel, but more a continuation (hence the Part 2), picking up from the ending of the American version, (this, to me, is a good thing as it means I can re watch the original and not have it tarnished by a duff cheesy ending and anything else that follows!) So picking up where Marshall wisely left off (though he inexplicably retains an executive producer credit) is editor Jon Harris, Harris’ direction itself is capable enough and the only area the film gains any respect from me, he builds tension without totally ripping Marshall off, however it is all the elements surrounding this that I take great issue with.

To list them would take all day but in a nutshell Harris et al have taken a genuinely scary premise and turned it into what is effectively the Hollywood remake minus the scares. This means all sense of realistic characterisation is lost, everyone becomes a cardboard cut-out with none of the eventual victims exhibiting even a modicum of sympathy, occasionally this works with the lack of star names meaning you don’t know who will live or die, but in the loose story provided and lack of character you will be too bored to wonder who or indeed how the next person will die.

Oh, the deaths, where the first film exhibited something brutal but restrained but this time we have all out pantomime gore, with bodily fluids, blood and poo (yes poo) splashed, squirted and dripped all over the place, it’s as bad as it sounds, and worse. There is truth to be found in the suggestion that delving into the origins of the unknown somewhat detract from the scares but at least if they had attempted that here the plot would have felt a touch deeper, as it is all we discover is … well… nothing!

Not a thing is new, so yes just like the first film, minus the scares (the only scary moment comes as a scene from the original is shown via a video camera!), a totally implausible plot kick-start (let’s take the amnesic survivor back down to the uncharted cave system!) and dire characters left me reeling as the final scene seems to exist simply for the setup of the inevitable  The Descent: Part 3, at least it can’t be much worse than its predecessor!

VERDICT

The Descent: Part 2 is notable only for taking one of the last decades creepiest and most claustrophobic films and essentially remaking it, albeit terribly! Just go and re-watch the original UK version…and forget this ever happened!

Starring: Maxwell Records, Mark Ruffalo, Catherine Keener (The voices of) James Gandolfini, Forest Whitaker, Chris Cooper, Catherine O’Hara, Paul Dano

Director: Spike jonze

Writer(s): Spike Jonze, Dave Egger, Maurice Sendak (novel)

Cinematography: Lance Acord 

Original Score: Carter Burwell, Karen O

Running Time: 101 Mins.

While I adored this year’s other filmic adaptation of a classic (but slight) and beloved children’s novel, Fantastic Mr Fox, I can appreciate that the criticism it attracted as far as not containing enough to actually make it both endearing to children and more importantly thematically understandable for anybody not familiar with Wes Anderson’s existential chatter (so not for kids then!). On watching the trailer for Spike Jonze take on Maurice Sendaks novel, Where The Wild Things Are, it seemed to become clear we had another Mr. Fox ahead, not a bad thing for anyone over the age of 18 but for anyone younger, in particular the very young of whom the book was aimed towards, it may well have become lost beyond the clever and unique visual realisation of the stories titular characters, again like Fantastic Mr. Fox…

This is can safely say is far from the case, Jonze realises that he is making a film of a children’s novel and is careful not to alienate them, in fact one has to consider that this was never an issue, the whole thing feels so effortless (in the best possible way), so naturally made, I was left wondering if anyone else could has truly captured the spirit of the book, only ten sentences long remember, and spun it our to over 90 minutes without making it seem slight, padded out or indeed unnecessarily stretched, all that and without adding much in the way of plot. What Jonze, and fellow writer Eggers, have done is take the theme’s of the book and enhanced them through event’s and in the most part chracterisation, of Max and the Wild Things themselves.

Plucked from obscurity, child actor Maxwell Records is quite simply perfect, real and conveying all those emotions a young boy experiences he encapsulates even the worst of these traits, whether it be anger, jealousy, a sense of fun, lonliness and a destructive nature without seeming annoying, this is no mean feat especially given that he is never really offscreen. There were rumours during the films troubled production taht the studio was unhappy with Maxwell’s performance, and at one point optioned reshoots with a different actor. Quite frankly it is impossible to see anything other than brilliance in the performance Jonze has coaxed from someone with no past acting experience.

The thing is that may just be the film’s coup, Max is not, in my eyes, acting, he in fact becomes Max, not in some Marlon Brando method way but simply by letting his own emotions flow freely, but in such a way that we can all relate to Max’s emotions, each and every facet is something we have all at some point in our lives felt, not neccessairly in childhood, but in the instances that it does you will feel nostalgia unlike that I would bargain a film has never pulled from you so effortlessly before.

It is in the Wild Things themselves that these emotions are delved into deeper, effectively portraying each part of Max’s psyche, so well realised (again this was apparently, and inexplicably, at one point a concern for the studio) they are played by people in suits and use only subtle CGI to enhance the facial movements, though you would never know, as it all seems so seam-less. For creations this large and lumbering it is a wonder you ever get beyond thinking of them as creatures, but here they are fully rounded character’s, even more of a feat given the aforementioned way Jonze uses each as a part of Max’s personality. To imbue each with both this quality and their own personalities is, on paper, a seemingly impossible task!

Each is voiced by a person who will likely be unrecognisible to most, the likes of Chris Cooper, Catherine O’Hara and James Gandolfini are not household names to most, this matters little, and in fact were we watching something onscreen voiced by someone as recognisible as Bruce Willis for example it could become hugely distracting, instead each voice is a perfect fit, Gandolfini and Paul Dno being the stand-outs but to draw attention to one or too feels unfair given each has their moment to shine.

It may all sound a little heavy, and lets face it, dealing with raw emotion can be in the wrong hands, but if at the age Max is your emotions are not at their rawest and most open, when are they? Meaning any child watching Where The WIld Things Are will relate, not in a morbid or troubling way but in such a way as they may consider themselves, seeing reason behind certain emotions, all this is attained in many films, most films have a “moral”, but to achieve it for all ages while avoiding patronising or alienating anyone, I can’t think of many individuals with this level of raw talent, apart from the folks at Pixar.

To offset any worry you may have of a depressing nature Jonze has not forgotton the sense of fun that comes hand in hand with childhood, living or reliving it, and the wild rumpus’s that involve a great amount of destruction of trees and flinging of monsters is pure Jackass, Jonze hasn’t lost his anarchic streak and in this case it fits perfectly, round it off with a great score by Karen O and two bookend sequences feeaturing Catherine Keener and we may just have a very late entry for film of the year.

VERDICT

There is no doubt about it, Where The Wild Things Are is the most emotional experience you will likely have in a cinema all year, and one of the best, thanks to Jonze and a an ensemble of elements fast approaching filmic perfection, capturing the anarchic spirit of fun we all have inside, alongside the worst times of lonliness this is a truly touching film.

Starring: Christian McKay, Zac Ephron, Claire Danes. Ben Chaplin, Eddie Marsan, Kelly Reilly

Director: Richard Linklater

Writer(s): Holly Gent Palmo, Robert Kaplow (novel)

Cinematography: Dick Pope

Original Score: Michael J. McEvoy

Running Time: 114 Mins.

Sometimes, just sometimes a film comes along, it holds little to no interest for me and the marketing of it slips under the radar, usually this is because of one of two things, either ’ very good, or those so often mentioned money men don’t quite know how to market said film. This lack of publicity also means there are very few pre-reviews and next to no hype, Me and Orson Welles is a film that fits firmly into this niche and is, in all honesty, a brilliant film maybe not because of but despite the lack of expectation, District 9 was the last film to truly bowl me over in such an unexpected fashion, though admittedly that was marketed to death!

Starring Zac Ephron hardly struck hope into my heart, his smug brand of acting has, in the past, put me off his now evident talents. Though 17 Again was enjoyable enough it just felt a little too lazy and far too obvious to endear me to the guy much, and with his name above the titles and grinning face spattered centre stage on the posters I was left expecting a twee and rather shallow rom-com, though given it is directed by Linklater (he behind fare as diverse and equally accomplished as School of Rock, Before Sunrise and A Scanner Darkly) I should have had more faith.

Linklater applies the same study of relationship’s to life as an actor as he does to anything else in the past, this is not the broad stroke humour of School of Rock or the out and out romance of Sunset but there is such warmth to be found making it a film that is very much deserving of the moniker feel-good film of the year unlike the vastly over-rated Slumdog Millionaire. Its charms are in the form of a trio, Ephron, McKay and Linklater (though everyone deserves credit)  namely, I never thought I would find myself saying this, but Ephron is a deeply likeable screen presence, he has the shine of a real Hollywood star, if Clooney harks back to the likes of Cary Grant, then surely Ephron is the product of the bygone Hollywood Golden Age, the Fred Astaire of the 21st Century as it were.

Allowed the freedom to flex his actual acting muscles with a background in musical means he has a lightness and graciousness about the way he moves, acts, and yes on one occasion, sings, he becomes at once likeable and believable in a Hollywood star way, not in the method way adopted by Bale, De Niro et al. In this time where darkness and troubled men and women are seen as a mark of depth and quality it is refreshing to see that great, not just good, films are being produced. 

However without the presence of it’s Orson Welles this wouldn’t be half the film it is, Christian McKay was plucked from obscurity (in Hollywood terms) as an actor with a background in the stage, I know little of Welles (I’m ashamed to say) but am aware of his larger than life personality and perfectionist ways, shaping Welles as someone I am this unfamiliar with before the film I can now whole heartedly say that McKay’s is one of THE performances of the year. True acting of the highest calibre, like Ephron he is a joy to watch but not only this he becomes Welles without imitation. Capturing the spirit of a man who used his evidently lofty skills to orchestrate a masterpiece (in this case his stage play of Caesar).

The thrid leg of the majestic likeability of Me and Orson Welles is its sense of time and place and the general structure, provided by Linklater, directed and layered so well, demonstrating how to have a large ensemble cast shine in their minimal parts, we get a feel for what it must have been like to work as an actor, to live in this fairytale like time. True nothing was ever this cutesy but films were designed to offer escapism, not depress us more than our own lives may at times!

The only weakness lay at the feet of Claire Danes, while this isn’t a love story between boy and girl so much, as ”the girl” she is offered a rather unlikable part, hell even Welles is likeable when hes doing something totally underhand, coming across as a rather nasty career minded woman Danes plays it so, which to her credit was right given the scripts offerings, but it means she becomes the only sour note in an otherwise perfect production.

VERDICT

A truly great film, Me and Orson Welles is not so good because of the lack of hype, but on its own merits, apparently they don’t make ‘em like they used too…on this evidence I would well and truly say they can, and do, thanks to an unlikely trio harking back to Hollywoods golden age.

Starring: Jamie Foxx, Gerard Butler, Colm Meaney, Bruce McGill, Leslie Bibb

Director: F. Gary Gray

Writer(s): Kurt Wimmer

Cinematography: Jonathan Sela

Original Score: Brian Tyler

Running Time: 109 Mins.

As Gerard Butler bounces between trashy action film as a cut price Statham (and thats not a compliment) and even trashier rom-coms, he is fast losing that star credibility and presence he gained in (the largely over-rated) 300. Judging by the title Law Abiding Citizen I would imagine you know which of the two Butler personalities we have on display here, however hard it wants to parade around as a film with some sort of moral agenda.

Effectively adding itself to the ever growing number of revenge vigilante thrillers that have been doing the rounds in their abundance recently, ranging from the very good, Harry Brown, to the downright awful The Punisher: Warzone, though even t their worst revenge plots always seem to hold a level (however low!) of guilty pleasure based enjoyment and Law Abiding Citizen on this count is no exception.

Cutting to the chase rather quickly and very abruptly we see Clyde Shelton’s (Butler’s) family murdered and raped whilst he lay helpless on the floor gagged and bound. Cut forward to a shady dealing regarding the two murderers Jamie Foxx’s lawyer Nick Cave, and a contrivance that sees the more vicious of the two get off with a slight prison sentence and the other condemned to execution, cut forward again ten years and we see the execution go nastily wrong, imagine The Green Mile’s sabotaged execution by way of lethal injection.

As of this point we realise that Shelton has decided to take the retribution into his own hands, though not personally as it would seem other than an initial and rather nasty torture and murder of one individual. Instead Shelton plays a cat and mouse game with Foxx’s lawyer turned assistant district attorney. locked in a jail cell Butler comes across as Hannibal Lector with a touch of Jigsaw about him, but without either of the charisma or interesting features of those two icons.

Having eliminated the actual murderers the main crux of the film places its morals or what is right and wrong in the legal system, you see Shelton’s gripes are more at odds with the system that saw the murderers not face the deserved justice rather than the murderers themselves. This poses a great many questions and in this idea lay a very interesting dilemma, raising issues of evidence over human testimony but once touched up the film just turns and decides to become one action set piece after another as orchestrated by Shelton, culminating in the most ridiculous and implausible of endings.

It is frustrating that in the hands of another director and writer Law Abiding Citizen could have become more than just a film about revenge, something that questioned what it is to put your trust in the legal system, but with the sledgehammer subtlety of Gray (who was behind the weak Italian Job remake) all hope for anything approaching subtle is all but lost, and even though the constant barrage of violence and explosions kept me watching I couldn’t help but yearn for something a little more substantial given the cleverer and more visceral film hinted at.

It is alleged that Butler was to play the role Foxx does in the finished product and for my money this really would have made little difference either way, and my personal opinion is that Butler should stick to more likeable roles as his charm can carry him through the limited acting prowess he seems to display, either that or a spartan beard! Foxx who was so good in The Soloist is back to his cocky self, albeit in a much more enjoyable way than he has been in the past (Collateral being the other exception) but as with Shelton the character is written so thinly with a severe lack of much in the way of likeability, you are left wondering who you are meant to be rooting for. This in itself this would be a clever ploy were it intentional, but here it just smacks of the inept laziness of the film as a whole.

VERDICT

The best thing to be said about Law Abiding Citizen is that it approaches an interesting topic, then sledgehammers itself through it with once ridiculous set piece after another, Butler is not a man charismatic enough to carry a lead role that required either more charisma or cleverness and sadly he seems incapable of applying either quality. But there are lots of explosions and gore, one to mark in the” awful guilty pleasure” pile then!

Starring: Cameron Diaz, James Marsden, Frank Langella

Director: Richard Kelly

Writer(s): Richard Kelly, Richard Matheson (Novel)

Cinematography: Steven B. Poster

Original Score: Win Butler, Regine Chassagne, Owen Pallett

Running Time: 115 Mins.

Every so often a film comes along with a premise that is thoroughly intriguing, one that raises a strong narrative and one that could potentially set the audience thinking, surely one of the highest commendation I would give for a good film. Richard Kelly’s follow up to the highly (over) rated Donnie Darko, and the (quite rightly) much maligned Southland Tales. Given that the man has those two pretentiously messy films films on his repertoire means it will come as no surprise that The Box sadly does not have a strong narrative, is not intriguing, but it DID get me thinking, thinking as to how on earth this mess was ever made.

In its favour The Box DOES have a great initial premise (from novel Button, Button by Matheson), couple get given the titular box, are approached by a strange man who claims that the button located inside the box unit can be pushed, should said couple push the button they will receive a million dollars, but *natch* someone somewhere whom the couple does not know will die. This is a strong basis for a quite simple tale of morals and the idea of choice and sacrifice, and selfishness, one line touches on the dilemma as the wife ponders to her husband whether she really truly knows him, basically asking what it means to know someone. This in itself raises some great ideas and leads, instead though it is a throwaway line in a plot that both makes little to no sense and meanders through so many different idea’s and concept’s I couldnt decide whether I was more bored or confused.

As you may have noticed I have yet to mention any of the cast, and with good reason, none of them register, Cameron Diaz finds her name above the title but is sorely miscast looking in pain througout while struggling with not just acting as confused as the audience will feel but also turning in a dire southern accent. As her husband James Marsden fares better, in that he has the ability to pull of a more complex role, but as with Diaz he spends most of the film looking confused (or bemused?). The only other person to register is Frank Langella. memorable only fro the fact that half of his face is missing (Two-Face style), and credit where credits due, the effects are good (I’m clutching at straws here to find any merit!). Though Langella doesn’t look half as confused as the rest of the cast he doesn’t ham it up enough to register as the villainous role he is meant to be fitting, overacting isn’t always a good thing but in a film this dreary it would have pepped it up a little.

As the ”narrative” progresses more and more red herrings are dropped, this is the kind of premise that M. Night Shyamalan would have thrived upon giving us a great denouement as is his ire, but with Kelly, whose trademark seems to be throw everything at the script and hope some of it sticks it falls apart and can never regroup. I desperately wanted to walk out at the point where Marsden has to enter a doorway of water and ends up splashing down on top of his wife in bed but I couldn’t help but wonder if Kelly had an explaination for all the incomprehensible waffle, alas he didn’t and as with this years other awful film Knowing aliens are thrown into the mix, oh and a bit of God too for good measure.

I could continue to comment that the music cues are totally misjudged as is the score, the setting is largely pointless (why the 70′s?) and any sense of pace is nonexistent but all of that becomes rather redundant when its attached to a narrative of such an inept and incoherent mess that squanders a potentially intriguing idea. After this I’d rather go back and re watch Knowing, yes it is that bad! 

VERDICT

The Box is a strong contender for worst film of the year, quite simply an incomprehensible mess with nothing to say,  made all the more annoying given the strong idea that lies at the start.