When I first learned about Avatar I thought “Hey, cool concept” but as the advertising become prevalent I quickly soured. I cannot explain what exactly made me go south on a seemingly cool idea, maybe it was the marketing that made the movie seem borderline cheesy…  Well, after much consideration I took a number of co-works to see to move… in IMAX… and 3D.

Holy Christ!  Seriously, holy Christ! James Cameron now knows what God felt like when he created the universe.

All the comments on how this was going to change movies were right, if not underplayed.  I could easily see how the technology and methods used to produce this movie will change production from this point forward.

Make no mistake, the story was nothing groundbreaking.

At times it was very, very predictable.  From about 10 minutes into the film one can easily figure out what will end up happening.  Roughly 5 times during the movie I thought to myself “Ok, we’ll see x happen because of this…” and it did.  That is not to say the writing was poor by any stretch, it was simply predictable. Also, there were several shots at the political world – specifically the war on terror. The funny thing is the story in and of itself was all that was needed to hammer that point home with grace, they didn’t need to write in the “hit you over the head” type of rhetoric to make their point.

Even with the predictable writing and political preaching the movie was flat out fantastic. Sitting down to the movie one has to wonder if they will buy into what they are seeing – will the mind get past the CGI, will you “believe”?  For me, the answer was yes.

Roughly everything about the alien world was believable. A number of times I was sitting in the theater thinking to myself that, indeed, this place exists and such a conflict is taking place.  There were no typical CGI issues  - bluing, misplaced shadows – everything blended together.  The clouds looked as if Jame Cameron plucked them from the sky and put them on film, the plants looked like they were alive, the animals looked flat out realistic for an alien world.

What this movie managed to do that very few have done previously, and have never accomplished on a scale such as this, is to create a believable CGI world that did not look as if it was a cartoon or myopic comic book world. Avatar truly created world and did so on an unbelievable scale.

Like I said, I was skeptical.  A close friend even posed the question “Didn’t Jurassic Park accomplish this oh so many years ago?” I thought it was an outstanding point. I didn’t know the answer until I actually saw the movie… no Jurassic Park did not accomplish this…. No one accomplished this.

This is the all around movie experience, even with a story that follows a writers “how to create a typical Hollywood movie” guide.  If you have any doubt just give it a chance, and if you have the ability to see it on IMAX and/or 3D do so.

I have to say it, I cannot stand Angelina Jolie. The way she looks, the way she carries herself, her self-righteous “I want to save the world so I’m going to adopt a bunch of children from a country no one has ever heard of when there are plenty of children in the United States that need homes” and, well, her style of acting. All of those factors played into my initial desire to NOT see Changeling.  The only reason I actually considered watching the move was because of Clint Eastwood.

I was NOT disappointed.

Changeling chronicles the Wineville Chicken Coup murders that gripped 1928 Los Angeles. Angelina Jolie plays Christine Collins, a mother who is desperately trying to find her missing son, Walter Collins. The anguish, pain and torment of this character is displayed with ease  by Angelina as she almost takes on the personality of Christine. The film also allows John Malkovich to shine as Rev. Gustav Briegleb, a minister and radio evangelist who has taken on the goal of fighting police corruption in Los Angeles.

While this is excellent film it really is all thanks to Clint Eastwood and his production staff.  Frankly, any talented actor could have played a mother desperately seeking her child or a minister attempting to stop corruption within a political system; however, not every director could set the mood and tone that Eastwood has developed in his years as director.  The detail given to set and prop design, the colors used to set tone, and the ease the story develops only comes with the experience a director, such as Eastwood, at the top of his game can provide.

Once I put my hesitations regarding Angelina Jolie aside, I found Changeling to be a truly enjoyable movie experience from just about every perspective – Acting, Production, Direction, and Story.

If you have not seen and you are looking for a good story, I suggest you give it a view.

Cormac McCarthy is a graphic, and in the minds of some, a disturbing writer.  Want a perfect example? Just look at “No Country For Old Men.” Sure, the Coen brothers added their twists to telling of the story but the movie gives you a baseline understanding of McCarthy’s writing. When McCarthy released “The Road” I found the book to be both mesmerizing and disturbing at the same time; however, when I found out that The Road would be turned into a movie I was concerned of the filmmakers ability to carry over that emotion.

The Road stars Viggo Mortensen and Kodi Smit-McPhee, as well as a smattering of other notable actors that have small roles, who are trying to make their way to survival in a post apocalyptic world. Simply due to the nature of the story there is very little dialog in the movie. Viggo carries the movie when speaking or simply showing his emotion in scenes, which is a great thing as he is on screen almost the entire time. Kodi Smit-McPhee, the actor in the role of the boy, is another story.

Smit-McPhee was mildly annoying to me. During the entire movie I kept thinking to myself what other actor could have filled the role.  Be it the way he was talking or crying, I just kept thinking how his performance was taking away from the viewing experience. It was almost as if Viggo was so good in his role any “not ready for prime time” actor sharing the screen ended up looking, well, like an amateur.

Robert Duvall has a small part within the movie as the Old Man. During a short exchange between the two Viggo and Robert, Duvall simply shines and shows why his is one of the greatest actors ever to grace the screen. It is unfortunate the story did not have more for Duvall to show his abilities.

The movie managed to create a world torn apart by some unknown event, and did so with minimal CGI. There were moments when I thought to myself this is what I would expect a post-apocalyptic world to be like. The problem I had with the movie version of The Road was exactly what I feared – the emotion and tension of the book did not translate to the film. It almost felt as if the essence of the story was sucked out and the viewer was left with an empty shell.

Viggo Mortensen was truly outstanding, and the 5 minutes that Robert Duvall was on screen was a pleasure, but overall the movie was just lacking.

Not a horrific film, by any means, it was simply disappointing.

Movie: Public Enemies
Director: Michael Mann (Heat, Collateral)
Starring: Johnny Depp, Christian Bale

Story

Public Enemies is a window into two worlds during the “golden age” of bank robbery. On one side we see how John Dillinger, played by Johnny Depp, has a softer side to himself – such as a man who is in love. The second point of view is how desperate the Federal Government is to stop and catch Dillinger and the bank robbers of the time. The focus falls on Melvin Purvis, portrayed by Christian Bale, as the man who is willing to do anything in order to stop Dillinger and his fellow robbers.

While an interesting view into the two worlds, the story seemed to draw out and, at times, have a loss of focus. It didn’t seem as “tight” at it could have been. A few times, it felt as if the movie was dragging on. The story telling that haunted Mann with the Miami Vice movie seemed to semi-bleed into Public Enemies.

Points: 1/2

Sound

Well, my initial thoughts were “Come on, it’s Michael Mann!” but there is one problem with the sound design. It seemed that, at times, it was difficult to hear the actors. Maybe the problem was with the theater but the volume appeared to fluctuate. T

The gun scenes were AMAZING. Mann’s movie “Heat” set the bar for what gun battles in modern cinema should be like. The magic carried forward into Public Enemies. A number of times I was sitting there saying “Wow”

Points: 1.5/2

Acting

Depp captivates the audience. You believe you are actually watching Dillinger, and feeling his emotions – both positive and negative – as the movie unfolds. Bale does not have a chance to shine as he does not have an overwhelming amount of screen time. When he does, however; one gets the feeling that he is a conflicted law officer who begins to compromise his values in order to gain the ultimate goal of catching a criminal.

Another worthwhile performance is Billy Crudup as J. Edgar Hoover. Outstanding!

Points: 2/2

Cinematography

Again, my initial action was “It’s Mann!” but I do have two complaints. It seemed as if the free floating camera – the “in the scene” view – lead to a rather jerky viewing experience at times. And it also got old. The second complain, and I never thought I would say this, but the digital cameras and filming has lead to a viewing experience that is almost too real. Not to sound old fashion here but I like my movies to… well.. feel like movies and not as if I’m watching a play except on the big screen. I don’t need to see every detail, every pore, on the actors face. Nor do I need to see every bit of dust on the bank counter.

To take the other side of the argument, there were to small but cool shots that did stand out to me. The first is during a night scene when agents are chasing Dillinger through a forest. The fog coming off of the hillside looked so.. vivid, so “alive” it was amazing. The second was watching the last breath come out of a man who just died. Very unique, very visual and helped bring home the point that he died.

Points: 1.25/2

Personal Enjoyment

The movie felt long and wondering at points but when it was on it amazing. While I wouldn’t say that it is a movie masterpiece, it did push the limits in terms of visual recreation of the period and trying new techniques in story telling. I enjoyed but wasn’t blown over.

Points: 1.5/2

Total Points: 7.25/10

Movie: The Taking of Pelham 123
Director: Tony Scott
Starring: Denzel Washington, John Travolta

Story

The Taking of Pelham 123 (the movie) is an adaptation the book by the same name except updated for modern times.  Denzel Washington plays Walter Garber, the dispatcher who is stuck dealing with the hijackers, and John Travolta takes on the role the lead hijacker – Ryder.  As the story unfolds and the true “background” is presented we get to see the entire cast act with emotions that allow the viewer to actually connect, as well as ask the question did our characters make the best choices.

I really liked the updated storyline and the introspective touch.

Points: 1.5 / 2

Sound

Wonderfully blended.  Tony Scott has the keen ability to match visuals to sound in a way that evokes emotion and enhance the story at the same time.  Be it a backward string chord or the diced up music for intense situations, his movies tends to come off as the “all around” experience. Most time it is so successful the viewer doesn’t even notice the impact on a conscious level.

Points: 2 / 2

Acting

Denzel had top billing but did not shine.  I’m not saying he “phoned it in” but it turns out that he was, essentially, a supporting role.  John Travolta, on the other hand, was SUPERB.  He was quick witted and his delivery spot on throughout the movie.  He even had the “crazy eye” look down.  By far, his performance stole the show on just about every level.

James Gandolfini played the New York mayor and it was great to see him play a character who was vulnerable while still being aware of the power he has.  One specific line in the movie that Gandolfini is hilarious and he delivers it with a deadpan look to his face.  John Turturro also provides a solid performance as a NYPD negotiator.

Points 1.75/2

Cinematography

Come on, it’s Tony Scott!  This movie shows how far Scott has come from Top Gun or True Romance.  The editing methods and filming techniques Scott uses continue to evolve from movie to movie. He refrained from overusing the color filters, quick editing or simply using an effect because he could – apparently learning his lesson Domino –  and now knows how and when reach into his bag of cinematography tricks in order to add to a scene.

Points 2/2

Personal Enjoyment

I really, really enjoyed this movie.  Frankly, I was laughing at the comments Travolta continued to throw out… and laugh like I was watching a comedy, not a thriller.  I contend Travolta stole the show and really made the movie for me.  While this wasn’t Scott’s best movie of the last 10 years, it was very enjoyable… so much so that I left smiling because of the humor.  Plus, it’s good to see Gandolfini in a movie where is isn’t a crime boss or ruthless killer.

Points: 1.5/2

Overall

Fans of Scott will enjoy. Individuals who enjoy a good thriller will enjoy. People that enjoy asking questions about what is right and wrong will enjoy.  Those who are expecting the “reinvention” of some franchise (cough Star Trek cough) will not.  For me, entertainment nearing perfection…but falls just short.

Total Points 8.5/10

Movie: Max Payne
Director: John Moore
Starring: Mark Wahlberg, Beau Bridges

Story

The classic PC game, much like other games, comes to the big screen.  For the first half of the movie it appeared things were going semi-stay true to the game plot.  Sure, he wasn’t part of the DEA in the movie, nor was the Punchinello Mafia family involved, but the general theme was there. Family killed. Man seeking revenge. Drugs and big corporation. However, things went so very wrong… there was a “demon” that indicated the drug and drug users, as well as the endless supply of bad-ass looking people who really didn’t add much to the story.

Basically, started with promise but fell very flat.

Points: 1/2

Sounds

Purely from a sound effects perspective, this movie had it bases covered.  Guns that would echo in empty spaces, slow motion explosions with sound to match… the attention was given to the details.  Interestingly, I do not recall any true soundtrack to the movie.

Points: 1.5 /2

Acting

Mark Wahlberg played a convincing Max Payne.  He seemed to be an individual who was  hurting, looking for a reason to why his life played out in the manner that it did. However, once the movie went too far toward computer generate action and Sci-fi toward the end, Wahlberg did not seem to be in his element.

Mila Kunis (Family Guy, That 70’s Show fame) took the role of Mona Sax.  A woman looking for revenge for the loss in her life.   Frankly, she didn’t have enough screen time to make much of an impact, but what little time she did have the “bitch” aspect she was shooting for came across loud and clear.

Other notables…Beau Bridges was involved in the movie as Max’s trusted confidant who turn on him and he plays the role very well. Kinda makes me want to watch more of his work.  Also, Chris O’Donnell had a very small role.  I was surprised to see he was even around these days.  It looks like the potential lead man roles of past are long gone.

Points: 1/2 (would have been higher by Wahlberg was out of he element the last ¼ of the movie)

Cinematography

Much like the story, the cinematography started off with promise.  The dark setting with off tone colors to set the mood and feel showed there was potential.  Once the movie started to add special effects – more and more special effects – the quality of the movie went down.  It was almost as if they attempted to create both a movie and a video game.  If that was the case, they failed.

Points: 1/2

Personal Enjoyment

I was excited and I was let down.  I really don’t know what more to say.  There was the potential for a good action movie that was based on a video game but they blew it.  Yes, you have to suspend reality in order to watch such movies but the poor integration of FX lead to a near catastrophe.

Points: .5/2

Bottom Line

Stay way unless you are completely out of other things to watch.  If you were a fan of the game, I fear you’ll be disappointed, and if you are looking simply for a game to movie conversion I strongly suggest you check out Hitman. Seriously, this isn’t even a keeper for your “I’ll keep anything” DVD collection…

Movie: 3:10 to Yuma
Director: James Mangold
Starring: Russell Crowe, Christian Bale

I’m going to do this version of movie thoughts a bit differently.  I am going to attempt to remove a majority of subjective feel of reviews by using a point system looking at 5 areas (Story, Sound, Acting, Cinematography, Personal Enjoyment) all of which carry a full 2 points weight.  The Personal Enjoyment category is in the group to allow the personal experience to have some value in the review – just not overwhelming the review.

So, here we go…

Story

A poor rancher, Dan Evans (Christian Bale) is slowly watching his ranch slowly die away and after a series of events he has the opportunity to take a criminal, Ben Wade (Russell Crowe), to a train that would ship Ben off to Yuma prison.

What Dan faces is the classic moral situation – Does one do the “right” thing when no one is looking or take the easy way out?  Ben Wade, however, is on a journey of self-discovery of sorts – Does he have a set of guiding principles, and what are they?

It’s interesting to watch as both questions are interwoven throughout the movie, one playing off of the other.  Ultimately, both characters learn about their true sense of self but it seems as if they both ignore their true emotions during the movie until the last 10 minutes.

Points: 1.5/2

Sound

The music, sound design and mixing levels were above average. It seems that westerns, for whatever reason, have a problem creating realistic gun battles. I am unsure if this is due to the spaghetti western history of the genre. A 2004 western, Open Range, changed that.  The end shoot out had amazing quality, and 3:10 to Yuma picked up where Open Range left off. The shots in 3:10 sounded REAL, the bullets hitting the wood sounded, well… like something really hitting wood. This simply added to the overall high production quality of the movie.

Points: 2/2

Acting

Crowe and Bale play very well together and provided believable performances.  Both are leading men which lead to a situation where it’s not clear who exactly is supposed to be the “Lead” in the movie.  While Crowe had top billing, the focus was on Bale and his internal conflict most of the time.  Ben Foster, who plays Charlie Prince, a member of Ben’s gang is FANTASTIC as a creepy, no morals, killer.  And it was a pleasure to see Peter Fonda on screen in a Western.

I have to cut down the points on this simply because Crowe/Bale leading man situation – while giving top notch performances –  took away from the movie ever so slightly for me.

Points: 1.5/2

Cinematography

For some reason, I’ve become spoiled by the Epic westerns.  The huge sky, the wide shots of the open range… you know. While this movie was shot with a masterful eye for detail, it felt more like a polished movie for the masses than the westerns I’ve grown to love.

I’m not complaining, I’m not saying this was poorly shot – there were a number of camera placements and edits that where cool AND that added to the story – but there was just something visually missing for me.

Points: 1/2

Personal Enjoyment

Lead acting confusion and certain visuals aside, I really enjoy this movie.  I simply love the conflict, the acting – especially of the 2nd players – is great, and the sound design adds to the entire experience.  I’d watch this over and over…

Points: 2/2

And the bottom line

Enjoyable movie that is paced quite well.  I look at this movie as Christian Bale’s hidden gem, as well as transition to a true leading man (in some ways taking the torch from Crowe).  If you enjoy internal conflict and westerns, I suspect you’ll enjoy this as well.

Total: 8/10

Oh, btw…

If you would like another take on the movie, check out Wandering Coyote. She agree with me on Ben Foster’s performance but has other thoughts on the movie.

Movie: Defiance
Director: Edward Zwick (Blood Diamond, The Last Samurai, Glory)
Starring: Daniel Craig, Liev Schreiber

Imagine you have no means to protect yourself beyond your physical strength. Now, add watching your family die and know that someone is coming after you simply because of your faith.  Wouldn’t that be hard?  Thought so. Add in the fact you are living in the middle of a forest and you have the true story of the Bielski brothers in Nazi-occupied Eastern Europe.

The tone of the movie is established the second the viewer was introduced, and nothing about the introduction is easy on the viewer.  We are shown just how brutal the police were toward Jews in Eastern Europe.  Shooting women and children. Stabbing men in the chest and face. Brutal. And the film does an outstanding job at showing how brutal it was.

The initial scene sets the emotional tone because the Bielski’s parents are kill and the need for revenge becomes self-evident.  The brothers take revenge on those who killed their parents and plan on going on their way, but they find they more people who need help and decided to stick around.  A sense of moral obligation seems to set in Tuvia, the character played by Daniel Craig, but Zus played by Liev Schreiber doesn’t share the same feeling.  He wants to fight, to move on, so the two split.  Craig is left to oversee the Jews in the woods, Schreiber join the Russians to fight.

In a number of ways, the movie is a moral paradox.  Can the person inside of you do what it needs to do in order to survive? The experiences these individuals face will either empower them to act or scare them to the point of inaction.  The movie also explorers the concept of love.  Can love grow out of necessity?

Zwick captured the setting of an Eastern European forest during that period – just like he managed to capture the period during both The Last Samurai and Glory.  The greens and blue added during the beginning and middle of the picture show, I believe, the tone of the characters.  They were down, there were depressed, or “blue” and the film reflects that feeling. When the characters find their new world, it’s sunny and flush with warm colors.

As for the movie technicals. There was no groundbreaking camera work in this film, yet the film was  shots in the movie are clear and indicative of a A+ movie.  The music/score add a lot of emotion for the viewer, and was done so masterfully.

I’m a sucker for period pieces – I’ve always said it – so movies like this always draw my attention.  This is no Saving Private Ryan but it is a SOLID movie.  Both Craig and Liev are at the top of their game, and that is reason enough to see this movie.  Add in a solid story and questions about life and the movie delivers an experience most lack these days – entertainment, a story and a point – and you have a strong move regardless of the small downfalls that may exist within the experience.

Rating: 7.5/10

Movie: Star Trek
Director: J.J. Abrams
Staring: Bruce Greenwood

Let’s face it folks, a number of people will not like what I am about to say. I don’t even like what I’m about to say, but I’ve come to terms with it. JJ Abrams was in charge of giving a new life to the Star Trek franchise, and he did so from a financial perspective, but he KILLED the very idea that the show was based on.

I am by no means a “trekkie”. I always found great enjoyment in Star Trek: The Next Generation, but I never explored the philosophical meaning of what Star Trek meant to society. I never decided to learn a fake language to show how dedicated I was to the show, and I never wrote letters to Paramount to point out errors in the storyline developed by one of their writers. I never took it seriously, I simply enjoyed the time I spent watching the show.

When the news that Star Trek was coming to the big screen as a JJ Abrams production, I was cautiously optimistic. The concept of telling the back-story of the old cast was a sound idea, but I had great hesitation because I find that most of the work JJ Abrams attached his name to is crap. This new incarnation of Star Trek is no different.

First, the acting and character development was unbalanced. As the viewer we have a number characters we trust and love but they are not the characters we remember. Zachary Quinto, who plays Spock, was one of the strongest performances in the movie. For an individual who is supposed to be unemotional, he did an outstanding job of making the audience care about his situation. Eric Bana, playing Nero, does a great job of playing someone evil. It almost seems effortless. Sulu, played by John Cho of Harold and Kumar fame, is fascinating and looks like a guy who can kick ass and taken names… and the other “main” characters don’t draw the viewer in.

Chris Pine, the relatively unheard of actor, does a piss poor job of playing the almightily leader – Kirk. His acting was weak and he created a character that was a drunk, a wild card and lacked any military experience. Basically, showing him as a punk. This goes against all portrayals set before this time. Karl Urban, aka Bones McCoy, was more of a lapdog to Kirk than an actual character and the great Simon Pegg was underutilized, if not forgotten, as Scotty.

But the movie did have Bruce Greenwood.

Greenwood, an outstanding actor with a resume that is unmatched, sets a great mentor and leader role. Every time he is on screen he is the center of attention. If he hadn’t been involved with the movie, I honestly think I would not have been able to watch the film.

The graphics… yea… the graphics.

JJ Abrams was obviously going to pay attention to the graphics, but there was too much attention on the wrong things while paying too little attention to what really matters. When the viewer first sees San Francisco, where Star Fleet is located, it just looks bad… it looks like a really poor model. When the shuttle crafts are talking off, I was looking for the wires holding the prop up. Seriously, the special effects from Blade Runner – all of 26 years old – looks better than some of the crap in this movie. And, really, does everything need to be filmed in a Blue filter and have constant lens flares? And what about the green alien Kirk was making out with? Was the actress dipped in green food coloring?

But it did have Bruce Greenwood.

If one was to take this movie and remove the name Star Trek what would be left is a “B” Science Fiction film shown on late night cable TV. There is nothing groundbreaking. There was no new aspect of the characters that became evident to the viewers. The movie depended on the classic “crutch” used by sci-fi writers that cannot tie things together – time travel – and there was no really desire to move the Star Trek story forward. There is NOTHING in this movie that makes you, the viewer, car about what is going on other than the name Star Trek.

In many ways it was as if JJ Abrams was involved in some masturbatory “look how good I think I am” fantasy all over the childhood memories of every science fiction fan. He didn’t recreate Star Trek; he killed in and replaced it with everything that is wrong about Hollywood today.

Simply put, on a stand alone basis, this movie would not survive. Adding the name Star Trek to it doesn’t help make it quality or a Star Trek movie.

…though it did have Bruce Greenwood.

Overall rating: 2.5/10

Movie: X-Men Origins: Wolverine
Director: Gavin Hood
Staring: Hugh Jackman, Liev Schreiber

I’ve never been a fan of the X-Men series, I’m not sure why… maybe it was the lack of ever reading/caring about comic books.  As a child I never had the desire to be a super hero, I never really cared about who they were or where they came from.  So, when I heard the initial reviews of the movie I was intrigued. All of a sudden the concept of when an individual super hero came from seemed, well, semi-entertaining. Yea, I was semi-wrong.

When watching movies in general, I take the view that I’m going to suspend reality for roughly two hours as I visit the imagined world presented to me by the director.  Obviously, this really helps when watching a movie based off of a comic book, but when the graphics, computer animation and special effects look – SO FAKE – it’s hard to keep the reality of the situation from sneaking back in.  Countless times throughout X-Men Origins: Wolverine I was drawn to the poor CGI, the obviously fake backdrops, and the seemingly rushed camera work. 

With any movie, don’t matter what I’m watching, needs to be able to pull me in.  The movie has to make me care about the situation, about the characters, but for roughly half of this flick I simply didn’t care about anyone.  The story didn’t pull me in.  An event about half-way through changed that, but if was only momentary.  I cared about two characters that had no major role in the story, once the two characters in question filled their role, I simply stopped caring about the people the director wanted the viewers to be emotionally invested in.

Aside from a  super hero movie, this was an action movie. There was plenty of action, don’t get me wrong; however, the action fell victim to the poor production values that the special effects did.  I kid you not when I say there was a chase scene that was so poorly filmed, on some back country road, that I thought I watching a deleted A-Team scene.  It was that bad.  

So, if you are looking for mindless action with no real point X-Men Origins: Wolverine will fill that need for you.

Overall Rating: 5.5 (due to some fulfilling action)