Movie Reviews

Avatar

Rating: PG-13
Submitted by: sfjoshtopia
Date: 12/19/2009 12:21 AM

Review of Movie:

My entire life I could only imagine what it was like for someone in May of 1977 who was then the same age that I am now, they go in to see a movie that had a fair amount of hype attached to it, but no matter what they had heard going in, they weren't prepared for what they saw. No, for what they experienced.

I have always wanted to know what it felt like to step out of that theater having just seen movies change forever. Having just seen Star Wars.

Now, I think I know.

I've grown up in a world that has always had Star Wars. It came out before I was born (although my parents saw it while pregnant with me, that probably has something to do with my obsession for everything Star Wars), so I never knew a world without Star Wars.

A case can certainly be made that a lot of what got made because of Star Wars was a waste of time, money, and talent (if using that word isn't being too kind), but there was a magic that happened that day, and there have been magical movies since that wouldn't have existed without the masterpiece that George Lucas gave us just over 30 years ago.

For the first time since that film, movies have been forever changed again.

It is the only way I can explain what I experienced in that theater tonight.

"This is going to change everything."

James Cameron has done what filmmakers have been trying to do for almost two decades now. He has created a world that it is utterly, totally, and completely real, beyond any doubt in your heart, even if your mind knows differently, and none of it exists.

He created not only totally believable humanoid characters that you could almost swear must exist, he also created an entire world for them that I want nothing more than to visit. I can't imagine that it isn't there, because it looked and honestly felt so incredibly real.

There are only two things about my feelings on the film that could even possibly be construed as negative, but I'm going to explain to you why I am not taking them as negatives.

First, the story is a bit predictable. There is no denying that. I can honestly say that I new each twist and turn of the story well before it happened. But I wasn't bothered by that in the least.

The story is, as they say, an age old tale. I can rattle off tons of movies and books that have told a thematically similar story, and I can even point to one in the history books, Pocahontas and John Smith. Sure the story has been told before, and in many, many different ways and places, but that is because there is truth to the story. The story is true, as true as it was when John Smith first laid eyes on Pocahontas, as true as it was the millions of times that it happened before then.

And the world is so extraordinary, that maybe we needed a true and familiar story to draw us in as completely as James Cameron draws us in. Either way, I have no problem with the story or the fact that it is predictable. The point of the matter is, it works.

The other small thing I have to say that could be construed as negative is that the perception of the 3D gets in the way a little bit at times, especially early in the military base. Later in the film on Pandora, it simply immerses you completely in the world, but in the human constructions occasionally it takes you out of the movie. The reason that I don't think that this is that much of an issue is because I didn't see this film in IMAX. At least I haven't seen it in IMAX yet. I saw it on a regular digital 3D screen, and I think that it is clear that this is a film made for and meant to be seen in IMAX. If it is at all possible for you to see this film in that format, I highly recommend it.

That being said, the magic is still there 110% seeing it in 3D on a normal screen. And I think that it probably is seeing it in 2D as well, although I don' t plan to find out.

The performances are fantastic throughout the film, and the dialogue is strong, especially compared to Cameron's last epic film which will get no mention from me here. I doubt that it is possible, but I think that Zoe Saldana (who was also spectacular as Uhura earlier this year in Star Trek) should get a nomination for best actress, even though her character was completely CGI'd. I'm not sure that just anyone could have brought that character to such complete and total life the way that she did.

Sam Worthington did a great job as well, both in and out of his Avatar. I was actually pretty worried about him because I didn't think that much of his work earlier this year in Terminator:Suckvation, (Hah, get it, Suckvation) but in the hands of a good director, he was very good.

The score which I have been listening to quite a lot on XM 76, Cinemagic this week, was brilliant, right up there with The Road and Star Trek for the best of the year. James Horner (Braveheart, Wrath of Khan, and Terminator 2 amongst many others) might have done his best work on this film. It fits the mood and the film so perfectly and naturally. I will be getting it from iTunes as soon as I finish this review.

Overall, I can't recommend this experience (because that is what it is, it is an experience, not a movie) enough. Do yourself a favor and see it. Because, truly...

This Is Going to Change Everything..

Josh Man

District 9

Rating: R
Submitted by: sfjoshtopia
Date: 08/22/2009 11:50 PM

Review of Movie:

District 9 is a very, very good film, but it is also very flawed and I would be lying if I said I thought that it was great. In comparison to any other movie this summer with giant fighting robots (Transformers 2 and Terminator: Salvation) then District 9 is great, but compared to truly great movies, District 9 is not a great film.

That isn't to say that I didn't enjoy District 9, because I very much did. The action sequences towards the end of the film were spectacularly handled and really made the movie worth watching for me. Director Neill Blomkamp has a very bright future ahead of him, and truth be told, if the Terminator franchise were handed to him, I would feel very relieved.

The problem with the film, in my mind, was the fact that it is very much two different movies, a drama with great social undertones being told in a documentary fashion, and a shoot-em-up action movie (that also has some important social undertones, just not as blatantly in your face) told as a standard action movie. The way the film transitions from one story and one genre into another story in another genre didn't work particularly well for me. The beginning of the film, leading up to the action, was poorly plotted and paced as if the film knew it was headed somewhere exciting, but felt that it had to get the "important stuff" out of the way first.

Overall, the movie (once it hits its stride) doesn't disappoint, and you won't feel as if you wasted your time, but the film itself wastes some time getting to that point. This being the first feature length film from the director, problems such as poor pacing, poor setup, and the overall lack of cohesion can certainly be forgiven, and like I said, this is still one of my favorite movies this year. My only thing is that the film could have been better, and I think it is only proper to recognize that.

One critic called this movie, "The best science-fiction film of the 21st century", which is utterly absurd. Sure it's a good film, but it probably isn't even in the top ten of sci-fi films of the 21st century. It is certainly no where near the genius of such films as Children of Men, The Fountain, or Sunshine. It's not even the best sci-fi film of this year. Moon wins that title thus far hands down. And while I greatly enjoyed District 9, to be honest, it isn't as good a film as Star Trek.

I've struggled with writing this, because I knew that I was going to come off negative on the film, and I don't want to be, because it is a good movie, but it isn't deserving of the hype that it is receiving and if people going in expecting to see "the best science-fiction film of the 21st century" they are going to come out disappointed.

Go in expecting a good movie, one that is flawed but is still worth watching, and I think you'll enjoy it as much as I did.

Josh Man

Inglourious Basterds

Rating: R
Submitted by: sfjoshtopia
Date: 08/22/2009 11:51 PM

Review of Movie:

I have to be honest and let you know that I am not a huge Quentin Tarantino fan. I loved Pulp Fiction, but most of his other films really don't do it for me. Part of that is because I really don't like glorified, stylized violence unless it really helps punctuate a deeper theme of the film (as is the case in Gangs of New York or Watchmen, and to be honest, the violence in Gangs of New York really isn't glorified).

I thought that I might enjoy this film, because the previews did make it look like it would be a lot of fun, and it looked like Brad Pitt was going to be fantastic.

Let me tell you, for the twelve or so minutes that he's in this film, he is fantastic.

Honestly, I don't know why this movie was called Inglourious Basterds, because the group that the movie is named after seems at best a sub plot in the film. You only really get any information on three of the Basterds and the info on one of them (the only non-American of the bunch) is told in news reel style which seemed really out of place. Actually, throughout the film, there were strange segues and stylistic shifts that bothered me, the film didn't flow very well for me, and I couldn't tell exactly what it was trying to be.

I guess, by and large, it is a war movie, telling a very ficticious story set in World War II, but don't assume that that means you know how this WWII ends.

What it isn't is a comedy, despite what the previews lead you to believe. Other then some of Brad Pitt's scenes, there is very little in the movie that will make you laugh (and even some of Brad Pitt's scenes will leave a bad feeling in your gut). With only a couple of exceptions, all of the even slightly humorous parts are in the trailer.

There are very few characters that are likeable or can even remotely be considered heroes, and if this movie were fashioned to be about those characters, perhaps I would have liked it more. Because even though, truthfully, the story should belong to them (Shosanna Dreyfus and Bridget von Hammersmark in particular) as they drive the films primary plot and are the only fully drawn sympathetic characters, the movie is far more interested in celebrating the violence (of the Nazis and the Allies alike) and the absurdness that the movie revels in towards the end.

Although the film is called Inglourious Basterds, Brad Pitt is the only one of the Basterds that really gets good attention from the film. Hugo Stiglitz, the one non-American of the group, and Donny Donowitz are the only other two who get some back story along with some screen time. Pretty much every other member of the Basterds are ignored, which is ridiculous when two of them are B.J. Novak (Ryan on The Office) and Samm Levine (from Freaks and Geeks and an arc on Undeclared). I don't feel like it is too much of a stretch to want to get to know the Basterds a little bit when the movie is named after them, but honestly you learn much more about the main villain of the film, Col. Hans Landa, probably the most interesting character in the movie, not that Tarantino takes as much advantage as he can from such an interesting and well drawn character, instead you feel almost cheated by his treatment.

And that is the problem with this film. This movie should have been about Col. Landa. Or it should have been about Shosanna. Or it should have been about the German actress Bridget Von Hammersmark. But it was about all of them, and a little bit about the Inglourious Basterds, and so in the end it wasn't about any of them, at least not enough so that you're satisfied. Instead, the film is a mess. It is entirely unsure about what it wants to be, and so it fails in being anything.

It wants to be an over the top comedy set in an alternate World War II. It wants to be a dramatic film about how a Jewish girl who witnessed her family die horrifically tries to take it on herself to end the Nazi war effort and in the process get some revenge. It wants to be a film about how a horrible but brilliant Nazi officer struggles with what he has been forced to do and perhaps find a way to change the legacy that he is currently known for and that he despises despite once embracing it. Tarantino claimed it was going to be a glorious men on a mission war film in the vein of The Dirty Dozen or The Great Escape, but it never really comes close to being that (like I said, the titular Basterds are very rarely on screen, this is not their movie). So ultimately it fails at all of them.

Like I said, I'm not a huge Tarantino fan, but I wager that even some of his biggest fans will be disappointed with this movie.

Josh Man

Funny People

Rating: R
Submitted by: sfjoshtopia
Date: 07/31/2009 09:46 PM

Review of Movie:

Judd Apatow, whose name is seemingly attached to every comedy released these days, has only directed three movies, The 40 Year Old Virgin, Knocked Up, and now Funny People.

You could argue that both The 40 Year Old Virgin and Knocked Up are films about childish characters who in the course of the movie grow up (at least a little). And in directing them, Apatow was attempting to grow up himself as a filmmaker. Well, with Funny People, Judd Apatow has made his first grown up film.

Like all of us, Funny People retains some of the same qualities that Apatow films had when they were younger and more immature. Don't worry, the jokes about male genitalia are still there (lots and lots of them). But the storyline (despite the title and the tone of the previews) is far more adult then his previous two films.

In fact, I'm not sure that I would classify this as a comedy. I mean, it is funny, or at least it has some very humorous moments. I laughed out loud on numerous occasions. But the movie itself is far more serious then one would expect from a Judd Apatow film, a Seth Rogen film, or an Adam Sandler film. In a way, this movie is a departure for all of them.

Seth Rogen plays the most complex character that he's played probably since Freaks and Geeks (a cult television series that sadly only lasted one season, and that featured Judd Apatow as a producer). This is not the Seth Rogen that has gotten a little overplayed of late. His wannabe comedian Ira Wright is as real as any movie character I've ever seen. In my opinion, this is the best acting job that Rogen has ever done.

Adam Sandler also gives the best performance of his career. His character, George Simmons is different from the characters that Sandler became famous by playing, although his character became famous in the film by playing many of the same types of characters. Sandler in this film plays a comedian not unlike himself, and yet plays it with a seriousness and a depth that I honestly found surprising he possessed considering the types of characters that he usually plays. He was phenomenal and worked incredibly well with Rogen throughout the film.

As always with Apatow films, the supporting cast helped make the movie. Jonah Hill was funny and used sporadically enough for even those that hate him to not have a problem with him in this film. Jason Schwartzman is hilarious as the buddy who has just enough fame to be really annoying, and his sitcom, "Yo Teach" is so terrible I'm surprised that it isn't actually on television. Aubrey Plaza (April the Intern on Parks and Recreation) is great as the girl of Ira's dreams, Daisy. It makes me hope that Parks and Recreation gives her a lot more to do in the future. Speaking of P&R, Aziz Ansari (Tom on P&R) has a few minutes of screen time and as always cracks me up. The best bit parts in the movie, however, belong to Judd's two young daughters also featured in Knocked Up. Here they have a much bigger part, and they are amazingly funny.

While the storylines in 40 Year Old Virgin and Knocked Up were pretty predictable (although still a lot of fun), Funny People is not at all what you expect or are led to believe from the preview (which doesn't give away nearly as much as it seems like it does).

Like I said, this isn't really a comedy, but more of a drama. It is a story about a near death experience and how such a thing is handled. It is a story about coming to terms with who we are as people, and that isn't always pretty and it isn't always funny even when the people it is happening to are hilarious people.

Go into this movie with an open mind, not expecting what Apatow has given you in the past, and you will be treated with a fantastic and award worthy film. This is the best movie that I've seen so far this year.

Transformers Revenge of the Fallen

Rating: PG_13
Submitted by: sfjoshtopia
Date: 06/24/2009 11:11 PM

Review of Movie:

Transformers: Less Then Meets The Eye

Growing up, along with Voltron, my favorite cartoon was Transformers. When the reigns for the inevitable film franchise were handed to Michael Bay, I was worried. First off, I knew that there would be little chance to have a clue on what was happening in any fight scene due to the camera shaking as if it were being pummeled rather then just trying to document robots pummeling each other. On that count I was most certainly correct, but overall the first Transformers film was actually enjoyable and it was cool to see the robots I had loved so much as a kid so awesomely recreated on the big screen.

Well, while the first time got he got it right, Michael Bay seemed to prove all the original naysayers right with his second go round.

I really didn't think that I would see a film this year that I disliked more then Terminator, but lo and behold, just a few weeks later, I did.

Transformers 2 is without a doubt one of the worst films ever made.

Look, obviously it isn't supposed to be an Oscar contender, and really it is a film that is probably meant to be enjoyed more by kids then adults. I understand that. But it isn't too much to ask a popcorn movie to be, I don't know, enjoyable. This film is anything but.

Michael Bay makes every fight scene pretty much impossible to comprehend as it is nearly impossible to tell which robots are fighting, much less what they are doing to one another, and really, the giant fighting robots was about all this film really could have hoped to have going for it.

As for everything else, it is really just embarrassing. There is a somewhat cool idea for a movie hidden amongst all of the extremely juvenile humor, but it is overshadowed and made pretty much moot by the majority of the film.

In just the first thirty minutes we are treated to two dogs having repeated sex in various places and the wonderful comedy cliche of the clueless mother getting stoned unintentionally on pot brownies. What is funny on an episode of That 70's Show probably doesn't belong in a supposed blockbuster summer action movie.

Throughout the film we are also treated to a giant robot's testicles (seriously) and a tiny robot humping Megan Fox's leg for well over a minute. I would think that perhaps this film was meant for the 8 year old boy market if not for the fact that it is a hard PG-13. There are almost as many cuss words in this movie as there are in The Hangover (although Transformers 2 does avoid the F-bomb. Good for it, I guess?)

Personally, I don't understand how any actress could agree to be in a Michael Bay movie as he is up to his usual misogyny in this film. Not only are all of the females given short shift, like the poor mother of Shia LaBouf's character, but they are generally treated like objects. Megan Fox is pretty much only around to look sexy. (Not that she isn't very good at it, because she is). But this film even goes so far to blatantly make the comparison of hot co-ed = evil robot. Literally.

The worst transgression, however, and the one that you are likely to hear the most about is the unbelievably racist stereotypes played out by the Twins, two Autobots that are portrayed as black youth and voiced in tacky hip-hop-esque dialogue. There soul purpose in the film is to beat each other up and call each other derogatory names for female genitalia. Also each of them are given a gold tooth and a joke is made at their expense pointing out the fact that they are illiterate. It is embarrassing and honestly made the movie a painful experience. There was literally no reason for these characters to exist other then the supposed "comic relief" that they were meant to provide.

This movie is not worth your time and definitely not deserving of your money. Please do yourself a favor and miss it.