I had heard that this was a good show. From someone. I think it turned out to be an utter waste of time and insanely stupid. There is quite a cast of notable actors, and I have a really hard time swallowing the fact that they all agreed to do this show. Maybe as a farce? Obviously, I just didn't get the punchline.
On this rare occasion, I turn to other reviewers to see what in the world they got out of this. Some are like me. A very small group of folks seem to think that this film points to the smoking gun of the idiocy that goes on inside the US military and political clowns. I can buy that, but this film did a poor job of pointing that out - very immature IMO.
14 July 2010
13 July 2010
The Girl with the Dragon Tatoo
It is hard to say what is so compelling about this story.
I got wind of it when surfing through movie previews, and noticed that there was a trilogy in print already. So I quickly reserved all three from the library and read through them. Stieg Larsson has compiled a very interesting tale about a very unusual and unlikely duo. While it is often gritty and even horrific, the realism only drew me in further. This is a key part to what I really valued from the movie rendition as well.
So, the books. I learned that Larsson unfortunately passed away. Fortunately, he worked on and completed all three books before his demise. It is interesting to note that he draws from his experience as a magazine publisher; one wonders where his inspiration for Lisbeth Salander comes into play. The story is very well done; complicated, with excellent character background, intrigue and an exploration of what is right and what comprises ones identity. I really appreciate how Larsson had a definite beginning and a definite end to his tale, and did not bother to meander along the writer's landscape that some authors are prone to do.
To be honest, the Swedish setting actually lends itself to the realism as well. As an American reader, the Swedish tongue is foreign enough to be just barely alien and thus set the stage for a fictional story - I have a hard time explaining why that makes it more believable to me. =) Maybe because it helps suspend my disbelief? However, the key point I really want to make is that the original film from Yellow Bird and Music Box was extraordinary in this regards; local cast, locale and language all make this film authentic and true to the story. I cringe to think what the American version is going to be like. It hearkens me back to Nightwatch, a Russian film with Russian actors based on a Russian story; trying to Americanize that piece would utterly kill it, IMO.
The film, true to the book, is gritty, raw, and downright disturbing. My hat is off to the awesome job the actors did in this film. Perhaps that is another element which makes this story more believable - none of the actors are well-known in the US. They are completely new faces to me, and utterly believable with their phenomenal performances. But the things they are asked to do are genuinely horrible. There is an interview with Noomi Rapace on the DVD that was also eye-opening; she worked extremely hard to get into character, and I am amazed at her dedication. Peter Habar also won my respect for such a wide dynamic of portrayals - he scares me. =) However, I felt he was much more savage and reprobate in the book, and I am sort of glad the movie did not go that far.
The technical manipulations with the Apple laptops was quite fascinating as well. To be honest, when I read the books, I was thinking about Sweden which is not necessarily known to be the hi-techno, gee-whiz gizmo center of the planet. But the film did a small turn of justice to technology with some of the visual displays, better than I expected a Swedish film would pull it off. Kudos to them.
Some notable exclusions between book and movie. No physical connection between Blomkvist and Cecilia Vagner, very little romance between Blomkvist and Erika Berger, very little picture into the glory of Millenium and what it does and the character development of the folks who work there. Likewise, very little attention given to Milton Security, with only a passing look at Dragan. In order for the next films to work, I can only imagine how those subplots will be built up.
I got wind of it when surfing through movie previews, and noticed that there was a trilogy in print already. So I quickly reserved all three from the library and read through them. Stieg Larsson has compiled a very interesting tale about a very unusual and unlikely duo. While it is often gritty and even horrific, the realism only drew me in further. This is a key part to what I really valued from the movie rendition as well.
So, the books. I learned that Larsson unfortunately passed away. Fortunately, he worked on and completed all three books before his demise. It is interesting to note that he draws from his experience as a magazine publisher; one wonders where his inspiration for Lisbeth Salander comes into play. The story is very well done; complicated, with excellent character background, intrigue and an exploration of what is right and what comprises ones identity. I really appreciate how Larsson had a definite beginning and a definite end to his tale, and did not bother to meander along the writer's landscape that some authors are prone to do.
To be honest, the Swedish setting actually lends itself to the realism as well. As an American reader, the Swedish tongue is foreign enough to be just barely alien and thus set the stage for a fictional story - I have a hard time explaining why that makes it more believable to me. =) Maybe because it helps suspend my disbelief? However, the key point I really want to make is that the original film from Yellow Bird and Music Box was extraordinary in this regards; local cast, locale and language all make this film authentic and true to the story. I cringe to think what the American version is going to be like. It hearkens me back to Nightwatch, a Russian film with Russian actors based on a Russian story; trying to Americanize that piece would utterly kill it, IMO.
The film, true to the book, is gritty, raw, and downright disturbing. My hat is off to the awesome job the actors did in this film. Perhaps that is another element which makes this story more believable - none of the actors are well-known in the US. They are completely new faces to me, and utterly believable with their phenomenal performances. But the things they are asked to do are genuinely horrible. There is an interview with Noomi Rapace on the DVD that was also eye-opening; she worked extremely hard to get into character, and I am amazed at her dedication. Peter Habar also won my respect for such a wide dynamic of portrayals - he scares me. =) However, I felt he was much more savage and reprobate in the book, and I am sort of glad the movie did not go that far.
The technical manipulations with the Apple laptops was quite fascinating as well. To be honest, when I read the books, I was thinking about Sweden which is not necessarily known to be the hi-techno, gee-whiz gizmo center of the planet. But the film did a small turn of justice to technology with some of the visual displays, better than I expected a Swedish film would pull it off. Kudos to them.
Some notable exclusions between book and movie. No physical connection between Blomkvist and Cecilia Vagner, very little romance between Blomkvist and Erika Berger, very little picture into the glory of Millenium and what it does and the character development of the folks who work there. Likewise, very little attention given to Milton Security, with only a passing look at Dragan. In order for the next films to work, I can only imagine how those subplots will be built up.
12 July 2010
Sherlock Holmes, 2010
I wonder how many times Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's story has been retold in the cinemas. I enjoyed this retelling, although Hollywood took some excessive license with our well-known hero. Call me slow, but it just dawned on me how similar Gregory House (House, M.D.) is to Doyle's main character.
I like Robert Downey, Jr. as a swash-buckling, egotistical almost-megalomaniac Hero. I am not so sure it comes off well as Sherlock Holmes; he gets the intelligence and the wit down pat, but some of the buffoonery comes off as sheer incompetence as opposed to absent-mindedness sometimes associated with a great intellect. I do in particular like the well-thought out premeditated scenes (most having to do with fights); to counter that, all that slapping stuff was just stupid.
Great characters all around, good casting (not great, not horrible). Good show. Passable.
I like Robert Downey, Jr. as a swash-buckling, egotistical almost-megalomaniac Hero. I am not so sure it comes off well as Sherlock Holmes; he gets the intelligence and the wit down pat, but some of the buffoonery comes off as sheer incompetence as opposed to absent-mindedness sometimes associated with a great intellect. I do in particular like the well-thought out premeditated scenes (most having to do with fights); to counter that, all that slapping stuff was just stupid.
Great characters all around, good casting (not great, not horrible). Good show. Passable.
The Green Zone, 2010
I actually saw a "behind the scenes" clip off Tivo before I even heard about this movie; Matt Damon did a good job taking this bull by the horns and I love how he gets into character.
My only major complaint is that I utterly detest shaky cameras. Yeah, I know it is supposed to help the viewer feel like he/she is part of the action, but it totally kills the connection for me. I mean, you can't see anything!
So aside from that, great plot (with excellent twists along the way), excellent action, acting, direction.. all around, very good.
As this is a movie, and not a Michael Moore documentary, it really does make you wonder how much of this stuff could reflect reality. Especially in terms of the politics involved. I already do not trust the government as it is, and I am fully aware that the normal average joe is getting screwed over by large Corps and Big Money. The whole fiasco with MWD was (and still is) underplayed. (As an aside for robots that look for "common keywords", MWD = Microwarp Drive in Eve Online *grin*) It makes me sick that folks in high positions get away with so much crap and are able to side-step the normal checks and balances that restrain the rest of us mere mortals. This extends throughout large government and even down into the police force.
I liked Freddy a lot! Aside from his believable performance, he was given some very key lines and for me, as an otherwise ignorant American, gave me a picture for what I believe the Iraqi heart might look like. Americans really need to stop sticking their nose in other countries. This whole idea of "democracy" as put forth by politicians (especially those in power) is a farce and has already exacted a huge toll on the global society.
My only major complaint is that I utterly detest shaky cameras. Yeah, I know it is supposed to help the viewer feel like he/she is part of the action, but it totally kills the connection for me. I mean, you can't see anything!
So aside from that, great plot (with excellent twists along the way), excellent action, acting, direction.. all around, very good.
As this is a movie, and not a Michael Moore documentary, it really does make you wonder how much of this stuff could reflect reality. Especially in terms of the politics involved. I already do not trust the government as it is, and I am fully aware that the normal average joe is getting screwed over by large Corps and Big Money. The whole fiasco with MWD was (and still is) underplayed. (As an aside for robots that look for "common keywords", MWD = Microwarp Drive in Eve Online *grin*) It makes me sick that folks in high positions get away with so much crap and are able to side-step the normal checks and balances that restrain the rest of us mere mortals. This extends throughout large government and even down into the police force.
I liked Freddy a lot! Aside from his believable performance, he was given some very key lines and for me, as an otherwise ignorant American, gave me a picture for what I believe the Iraqi heart might look like. Americans really need to stop sticking their nose in other countries. This whole idea of "democracy" as put forth by politicians (especially those in power) is a farce and has already exacted a huge toll on the global society.
The Book of Eli, 2010
I was at first worried that this was going to be too much like Cormac's "The Road"; the whole post-apocalyptic, anarchy, dog-eat-dog thing going on. There was a bit of that enmeshed into the story, but not quite to the same degree.
I am not a big Gary Oldman fan, and after this feature I am even less so. Hard to tell how much of it was his fault vs the screenwriter; just a wee bit too obsessed on a friggin' book and nobody knows why. Eli alludes, mysteriously, to how it might have started the war, but that's all we get.
The obvious religious tie-ins were intriguing, and I especially appreciated the twist at the end. However, the loopholes nag at me. Eli was travelling for 30 years?!? And never got lost? How is it that he not only learned Braille, but was able to retain and regurgitate the entire King James Bible? How come more people did not live near the coast? In a world where water is such a precious commodity, you only have a small population living on a freak of an island?
Overall I enjoyed this film. The soundtrack was very good and I enjoyed the direction of the film. I was not crazy about the high-contrasted, muted colors though. I realize the color palette and lighting effects were added to help it feel post-apoc, but still... in my own words, I would call it "too artsy".
The Last Airbender, 2010
Apparently, my expectations for this movie were a bit too high. I guess the fact that there were kid actors should have clued me in. Granted, that sounds harsh for young, talented actors - my biggest beef with this film was the horrible script. While it dealt with some excellent topics like "responsibility", most of the dialog was horrid and some of it just down right asinine. I was also supremely pissed off when the last few scenes were an obvious jumping-off point for a sequel. I will not be seeing the sequel, thank you very much.
With so many Asian influences (including the middle-eastern flavors of the Fire Nation), I just could not understand why Katara and Sokka were cast as white Americans.
This really was a young teen's movie, I think. Unfortunately. Not much for an adult to draw from.
20 January 2010
The Brave One, 2007
This was an amazing film! Even though you know what's going to happen, the story is riveting and gripping; you have to see exactly how what you know is going to happen happen.
Jodie Foster inbues her character with an intense depth that draws one right in. The story, obviously, is highly dramatic and pulls your strings. Don't watch this film expecting action sequences, but also, the scenes are so gruesom and energized that this is no drama, either. I was not overly convinced by Terrence's performance. Or perhaps the fault lies with his script. Or something.... He is very honorable, but the kind of honorable with a flaw. And I am biased towards Naveen, having seen him in other productions; his part was .... well, quite small in this one, but the story (and Jodie) magnified his presence in phenomenal ways.
I love how the plot drew me in. You know the story is about vengeance and vigilantes, you know hte good guys are going to win. But you just have to see how it all comes down. It touches on the morality of justice, a deep topic in any context. My one biggest problem is that this movie, like so many others, glorifies the individual, personal sense of what is right and what is not. It does not adhere to an absolute standard of justice. On the other hand, it also showcases the severe problems with the current legal system, especially the inability of the "upholders of the law", the police, to bring the guity before judgement. I love how Terrence's character (Mercer) said of such a problem that there is nothing legal he can do about it, but had to backtrack and rescind that statement. He opened up the window to his true thoughts, just a crack, and realized that what he said is not fit for the law he is supposed to represent. That is the grit of life.
The recurring theme (both in music and via the radio show) of "walking the streets" became powerful, and I am really glad the director/producer did that. I was enthralled how "walking the streets" irrevocably transformed into a stranger;
There is something about that statement which resonates with the power of authority and truth about that. We are all changing, growing, becoming strangers on the streets we walk. We may try to stay the same, and we may see the same things around us, but people change.
Jodie Foster inbues her character with an intense depth that draws one right in. The story, obviously, is highly dramatic and pulls your strings. Don't watch this film expecting action sequences, but also, the scenes are so gruesom and energized that this is no drama, either. I was not overly convinced by Terrence's performance. Or perhaps the fault lies with his script. Or something.... He is very honorable, but the kind of honorable with a flaw. And I am biased towards Naveen, having seen him in other productions; his part was .... well, quite small in this one, but the story (and Jodie) magnified his presence in phenomenal ways.
I love how the plot drew me in. You know the story is about vengeance and vigilantes, you know hte good guys are going to win. But you just have to see how it all comes down. It touches on the morality of justice, a deep topic in any context. My one biggest problem is that this movie, like so many others, glorifies the individual, personal sense of what is right and what is not. It does not adhere to an absolute standard of justice. On the other hand, it also showcases the severe problems with the current legal system, especially the inability of the "upholders of the law", the police, to bring the guity before judgement. I love how Terrence's character (Mercer) said of such a problem that there is nothing legal he can do about it, but had to backtrack and rescind that statement. He opened up the window to his true thoughts, just a crack, and realized that what he said is not fit for the law he is supposed to represent. That is the grit of life.
The recurring theme (both in music and via the radio show) of "walking the streets" became powerful, and I am really glad the director/producer did that. I was enthralled how "walking the streets" irrevocably transformed into a stranger;
There is no going back, to that other person, that other place. This thing, this
stranger, she is all you are now.
There is something about that statement which resonates with the power of authority and truth about that. We are all changing, growing, becoming strangers on the streets we walk. We may try to stay the same, and we may see the same things around us, but people change.
17 January 2010
WALL-E, 2008
This was a really cute movie; great for watching with little ones. I really enjoyed the "over-the-top" roboticness; arms and manipulators that go through 720 degrees of motion, panels that slide and peel like onions, never-ending motion that results in a very simple action. The contrast between the stark hospital purity (aka, sterility) of the "future" robots and the grit, the run-down, energy-inefficient clumsiness of the older (WALL-E) was very well done. The team that wrote, designed, automated and directed WALL-E was ingenious; so many small details, so many idiosynracies, so many things that could be "real".
Two particular problems I had with the story (and Pixar to a degree). While so much attention is given to the landscape and WALL-E, the humans look like plastic toys. Ok, forget that they are enourmously overweight, so many of Pixar's humans look so unreal. Ok, now back to the story, it is just ridiculous that every single human is obscenely obese; where are the health nuts? The Tree huggers? And what's with every single person being so disconnected from reality that they do not even notice the "world" (ship) around them? If that was the whole point, the storywriters did well to go above and beyond to make it. But it just felt.... out of place. And the robot "Hospital Ward" was done up more like an experimental lab from a horror movie, only with bright shiny lights and pastel colors.
The romance was light-hearted and heart warming. The pixelized facial expressions of the white robot (EVE) were great; interesting how they were so retro, as well. I enjoyed the complete facial swipes as EVE attempted to find a language that WALL-E would understand.
Two particular problems I had with the story (and Pixar to a degree). While so much attention is given to the landscape and WALL-E, the humans look like plastic toys. Ok, forget that they are enourmously overweight, so many of Pixar's humans look so unreal. Ok, now back to the story, it is just ridiculous that every single human is obscenely obese; where are the health nuts? The Tree huggers? And what's with every single person being so disconnected from reality that they do not even notice the "world" (ship) around them? If that was the whole point, the storywriters did well to go above and beyond to make it. But it just felt.... out of place. And the robot "Hospital Ward" was done up more like an experimental lab from a horror movie, only with bright shiny lights and pastel colors.
The romance was light-hearted and heart warming. The pixelized facial expressions of the white robot (EVE) were great; interesting how they were so retro, as well. I enjoyed the complete facial swipes as EVE attempted to find a language that WALL-E would understand.
Terminator Salvation, 2009
I had an opportunity to watch this flick for free - did not want to waste the money to rent it. The whole Terminator series has gone down hill in a big way. The time travelling just throws the whole thing off. The lastest film capitulates on the impossible war against the superior machines, and there are so many holes that the story could be a strainer for pasta.
I love all things hi-tech; I like robots, spaceships, futuristic settings, etc. The only reason I even agreed to watch latest incarnation of Terminator was for the special effects and the robots. While I enjoyed the soundscape and various technology-oriented themes, it was mostly a disappointment. It seems that the machines have gotten dumber and weaker instead of smarter and stronger. They have at least gotten bigger; the monstrous, 60-foot tall bi-pedal mech had the cool touch of including mechanized, autonomous killer bikes. Although for all their technologocial superiority, they still were immobilized very easily. Likewise, the machine slave transporter included cool assault drop ships.
Seeing a complete CGI redo of Schwarzenegger was awful. Why bring that back? Of all the kooky things, it seems that the new model's skin is exceedingly tough - the flesh was not even scratched with another Terminator smacked him upside the head. That is some impervious skin. Too bad the metal underlying the skin is so brittle.
I love all things hi-tech; I like robots, spaceships, futuristic settings, etc. The only reason I even agreed to watch latest incarnation of Terminator was for the special effects and the robots. While I enjoyed the soundscape and various technology-oriented themes, it was mostly a disappointment. It seems that the machines have gotten dumber and weaker instead of smarter and stronger. They have at least gotten bigger; the monstrous, 60-foot tall bi-pedal mech had the cool touch of including mechanized, autonomous killer bikes. Although for all their technologocial superiority, they still were immobilized very easily. Likewise, the machine slave transporter included cool assault drop ships.
Seeing a complete CGI redo of Schwarzenegger was awful. Why bring that back? Of all the kooky things, it seems that the new model's skin is exceedingly tough - the flesh was not even scratched with another Terminator smacked him upside the head. That is some impervious skin. Too bad the metal underlying the skin is so brittle.
09 January 2010
Angels and Demons, 2009
It is interesting how Dan Brown (the author of these stories) focuses so much on religious corruption and super-secret socieities, mixing in much myth, legend and old-school fables.
I like Tom Hanks for these films. It is possible others could have filled his shoes (maybe), but I like him in what he did. I am not so sure I liked the pairing of him with the obligatory "good girl" scientist Vittoria - I did not find her believable at all. I felt that the Catholic population was well cast, even though I had strong doubts about Ewan; but he pulled through.
The story is a good bit of entertainment. I think I might be fed up with all the hooplah surrounding The Illuminati and such, between Dan Brown's stories and "National Treasure". However, the twist in this one is a good one. Overall, good flick but would not see it again.
I like Tom Hanks for these films. It is possible others could have filled his shoes (maybe), but I like him in what he did. I am not so sure I liked the pairing of him with the obligatory "good girl" scientist Vittoria - I did not find her believable at all. I felt that the Catholic population was well cast, even though I had strong doubts about Ewan; but he pulled through.
The story is a good bit of entertainment. I think I might be fed up with all the hooplah surrounding The Illuminati and such, between Dan Brown's stories and "National Treasure". However, the twist in this one is a good one. Overall, good flick but would not see it again.
Duplicity, 2009
Like Doubt, this one left too much up in the air. Not quite as bad. Unfortunately, I do not like the main leads (Clive Owens and Roberts have done a number of flicks together now, and I do not like their clashing smashups at all).
The director did pull some of the loose threads together, which I appreciated. The "twist" at the end even comes across as intentional, instead of a poorly done movie. One line I did not quite get, out of the many I did not get, was when Claire (Roberts) says to Ray (Owen) during one fun kissing scene is "We still do not trust each other". Sure, I get that in the espionage business, the key is never to trust anyone. But they did trust each other. I came away thinking that they direction allowed them to have too much bonding time with each other; if they truly did not trust each other, they should have been a bit more evil, cruel, conniving, manipulative. Don't get me wrong, plenty of that was going on, but it was feeling too much like "Mr. & Mrs. Smith".
The director did pull some of the loose threads together, which I appreciated. The "twist" at the end even comes across as intentional, instead of a poorly done movie. One line I did not quite get, out of the many I did not get, was when Claire (Roberts) says to Ray (Owen) during one fun kissing scene is "We still do not trust each other". Sure, I get that in the espionage business, the key is never to trust anyone. But they did trust each other. I came away thinking that they direction allowed them to have too much bonding time with each other; if they truly did not trust each other, they should have been a bit more evil, cruel, conniving, manipulative. Don't get me wrong, plenty of that was going on, but it was feeling too much like "Mr. & Mrs. Smith".
Doubt, 2008
I am trying to decide what I liked about this movie. Not much. Part of it is that I do not care for Streep or Hoffman. In a way, that made everyone else stand out. =) Sister James (Amy Adams) was a good character, charming for all her naivete, but a little too childish in some ways.
I realize the premise of the movie is Doubt. And I think it makes a good point that even in varoius pursuits of religious sincercity and faith, everyone has doubts. That being said, what was the point? What was the audience to walk away with? A movie capitalizing on the topic of doubt should not leave so much up in the air, I think.
I realize the premise of the movie is Doubt. And I think it makes a good point that even in varoius pursuits of religious sincercity and faith, everyone has doubts. That being said, what was the point? What was the audience to walk away with? A movie capitalizing on the topic of doubt should not leave so much up in the air, I think.
Avatar, 2009
I do not recall if I have ever seen a 3-d movie. Nope, don't think so.
So I do not have much to compare to. But what I saw I liked. True, most of the film did not seem especially 3d'ish - so much of it was, well, 2d. *grin* But whether it was my imagination, or the 3d special affects, or some combination of both, there was definitely some sharper clarify in the picture. Ironically, what really hindered the 3d effect for me was the edge of the screen - it would be extremely interesting to have watched this in IMax.
But on to the movie itself. I like the way it was shot; vibrant colors, wonderful detail, good sound quality. The CGI was exceptionally good, but not yet perfect. For instance, the landscape was amazing, especially the floating mountains. However, the humanoid Na'vi still come across as fake. I really like how the artists melded the faces of the real-life actors into their creations, and it is obvious that a lot of movement came from recording the live-action. There were enough things, tho, that demonstrated the short-comings of CGI.
The plot was interesting. Not exactly sitting-on-the-edge-of-your-chair gripping, but the same stuff recyled between the "against all odds", small man vs. big man themes as in The Matrix or even many of the Disney films.
Some of my biggest issues involve the "linking". Somehow a humans conciousness is transmitted into a Na'vi body. The films shows a hyperspace-like, almost wormhold-travel transition which would leave one to believe that this "linking" is essentially an out-of-body experience. Aside from that voodoo, the avatar Na'vi retains the special ability to "sync" with living things, which is just outrageous. Another problem I had was with the general dude; his script took him way too far into stereotypical diabolical land. And the profit-hungry corporation guy was a bit too soft and too weak in the end.
I did like the symbolism with the climatic battle between the general's mech and Sully's Na'vi; both avatars, both battling it out, tech vs nature (in a way).
I really enjoyed the performances of Worthington and Saldana; I felt they did a great job and had wonderful chemistry. Of course, Saldana's character was, for all intents and purposes, 100% generated, so some of that chemistry is a bit contrived, imo. Still, without those two, the movie would be a complete flop.
So I do not have much to compare to. But what I saw I liked. True, most of the film did not seem especially 3d'ish - so much of it was, well, 2d. *grin* But whether it was my imagination, or the 3d special affects, or some combination of both, there was definitely some sharper clarify in the picture. Ironically, what really hindered the 3d effect for me was the edge of the screen - it would be extremely interesting to have watched this in IMax.
But on to the movie itself. I like the way it was shot; vibrant colors, wonderful detail, good sound quality. The CGI was exceptionally good, but not yet perfect. For instance, the landscape was amazing, especially the floating mountains. However, the humanoid Na'vi still come across as fake. I really like how the artists melded the faces of the real-life actors into their creations, and it is obvious that a lot of movement came from recording the live-action. There were enough things, tho, that demonstrated the short-comings of CGI.
The plot was interesting. Not exactly sitting-on-the-edge-of-your-chair gripping, but the same stuff recyled between the "against all odds", small man vs. big man themes as in The Matrix or even many of the Disney films.
Some of my biggest issues involve the "linking". Somehow a humans conciousness is transmitted into a Na'vi body. The films shows a hyperspace-like, almost wormhold-travel transition which would leave one to believe that this "linking" is essentially an out-of-body experience. Aside from that voodoo, the avatar Na'vi retains the special ability to "sync" with living things, which is just outrageous. Another problem I had was with the general dude; his script took him way too far into stereotypical diabolical land. And the profit-hungry corporation guy was a bit too soft and too weak in the end.
I did like the symbolism with the climatic battle between the general's mech and Sully's Na'vi; both avatars, both battling it out, tech vs nature (in a way).
I really enjoyed the performances of Worthington and Saldana; I felt they did a great job and had wonderful chemistry. Of course, Saldana's character was, for all intents and purposes, 100% generated, so some of that chemistry is a bit contrived, imo. Still, without those two, the movie would be a complete flop.
08 September 2009
New Directions
I have finally allowed myself to become swallowed in the lore of EVE Online. I really like this game. I have posted about it a few times already, and I finally took the plunge and immersed myself. Even after several months, I cannot say I love the game, but I do like it alot. And I am learning a lot about its internal workings, the social community around it, and even a bit about myself.
About myself? Take, for instance, that I write this post as if I have an audience. I do not. So where does this desire to blog about a gaming experience that devours my time come from? Excellent question. Part of it is that I have read some really fun blogs, from all aspects of the game (mining, PVE, PVP, exploring, ratting, research/invention), from those are big into role-playing (the guys that have a hard time logging out even after the computer screen has gone black) to those who are in it for the quick fix. Oh, by the way, EVE has no quick fixes, per se. It is one of the slowest, yet most realistic, games I have ever come across.
So I hope to be cataloging some of my experiences. I'll delve into my character(s) past at some point, give some tidbits about the future, and paint the current picture as we go along. For instance, I recently joined up with SMX, an in-game corporation with some nice connections. On my first official mission/operation with a team, I netted 170 million isk (EVE currency). This is the most money I have ever made in one shot so far, and gives me great hopes about my time with this corp. They specialize in wormholes, the latest "thing", providing lots of exotic materials and "tougher-than-normal" enemies. I have been living in one of the spectactular environments, known as w-space (for wormhole space), a region of the universe with no rules what-so-ever, and even some bizarre physical properties. It is not exactly newbie friendly, which is part and parcel to the high rewards.
Any way, more later. I hope.
Currently reading through Vlad's audit logs.
25 August 2009
Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince, 2009
I am torn if I would elect to see this movie a second time or not. Usually this is what I use to determine between my "blacklist" and "whitelist". I thoroughly enjoyed the movie and found it entertaining, but would I see it again? I think not.
The movie's special magic is really appreciated in the larger scope of the story, since it cannot possibly stand on its own (just like the books). I am a visually-oriented person, so seeing the book played out on the big screen is very satisfying to me. I grant the obvious alterations Hollywood chose, and for the most part, I am just going to ignore them. However, how the movie portrays spell-casting (and subsequent spell-based battles) is a bit perplexing. How is it that some spells come out of the wands like streams from the GhostBuster's guns, even to the point that such streams can meet in the middle and war with each other? That's not what spells do. Some spells have special affects (the obvious green of Voldy's fav "Avada Kedavra"), while most spells get to their targets with no affects. Some (all?) spells can be deflected somehow and produce a visible white flash as if they hit a shield. I thought spells had to be counter-spelled, not merely deflected with a flick of the wand.
I like how the characters mature (physically, emotionally and not to mention the actors themselves are growing professionally and literally). The movies (and the storyline itself) get darker and darker, proving that these are not kids stories. I find it frightening that parents are brining young children into the the theatres to see this.
The special affects are well done, and the color/lighting is pretty good throughout. While I appreciate that there is only so much they can put into the movie, I do kinda wish there was more on Tom Riddle's background. I think.
District 9, 2009
I was intrigued by the anthropology aspect (using aliens instead of humans) presented by the previews, mixed in with the sci-fi of alien technology. The directors/producers did a great job representing a completely alien race, depicting an almost believable story. The greater genious was the hyperbole - apartheid.
The setting is very confusing at first; a giant spaceship shows up out of nowhere and just sits above an African city doing nothing. When the government breaks into it, they find a starving mass of delinquent human/insectoids, not to mention of a cache of gun-like objects that cannot be operated. How is it that this large group of seemingly low-intelligent life forms got to be stuck on this floating castle? Are the aliens merely cattle or slaves? The reaction by the general public are interesting in that they are curious, scared, cautious, and deteriorating into downright inhumane disregard for another lifeform. The "racial" tension is extremely poignant and explicit.
The lead (Wikus, played by Sharlto Copley) was an almost disturbingly naieve, compassionate EMU employee. What I found most interesting was that Wikus had a monumental brain fart when encountering an alien that was not only able to cogently read the hastily and wrongfully enforced eviction notice, but an alien that comprehended exactly what it meant and what his rights were. Also, the sublime metamorphises of his pysche that shadowed his physical transformation was outstanding.
Great cinematography, good use of lighting and special affects. The CGI was integrated quite well, although sometimes the aliens moved a bit too... computer-generated-ish. Not easy to spot except once or twice, overall not a big deal. While I thought the aliens manipulation of the shuttle's 3d interface to be cool, it came across as a little over-the-top. It helps that the scene was during a highly dramatic climax. The alien vocalization was done well.
The alien technology was appropriately alien - I did not understand much of it at all. =) What exactly did the weapons do? Yes, obviously they were very good at exploding humans into a bloody mess, but how? The alien mech-warrior was awesome, but I did not buy the easiness with which Wikus was able to pilot it.
Good stuff.
07 July 2009
Eagle Eye, 2008
I enjoyed the plot in this film; a good bit of suspense, not knowing who was directly Jerry and Rachel to do all those crazy things they would never do in real life. The twists and story branches are quite good.
The computer technology aspect is a bit of a double-edge sword. For entertainment value, it is intriguing to see a super-computer do so much, the possibilities of all the control it could exert over our lives. However, my belief was suspended a bit too thin and it became more of a gimmick for me.
Great acting all around. Rachel's kid Sam (Cameron Boyce) has the most engaging smile. =) Even those with small parts did a great job, IMO. I enjoyed the action scense, although by the end I felt like it was going over-the-top with the extent to which the AI could manipulate the world.
06 July 2009
Babylon A.D., 2008
To be honest, the only reason I picked this dvd up was because it had Vin Diesel and things blowing up. =) And call me weird, but the title made me think of Titan A.E., to the point I had "Babylon A.E." in my head. Yes, I am messed up, I realize that. I guess there are distant and vague similarities, but...
And while I like Vin Diesel, I have not been overly impressed by his sci-fi roles. I like him as an individual in the Riddick series, but the story line did not do him any favors. He really stands out in the down-to-earth, honest-to-goodness, bang 'em up here and now pieces like Fast and Furious.
Back to Babylon. What the heck is the title supposed to mean?!? It was never really explained in the movie - if it was, I totally missed it. The not-so-distant future of eastern Europe/Russia and New York was appropriately "just enough to be possibly believable". I enjoyed the tantalizing mystery of who (or what) Aurora was, and I thought Mélanie Thierry did a great job portraying her. Interesting to see Yeoh getting some screen time on a sci-fi flick - I like her character as well. The whole whacked-out religious angle was bigger than I could chew, and did not get how the "virgin birth" would legitimize the so-called religion.
The ending was just horrid. I felt like an artiste was sitting at the potter's wheel and keeled over from a heart attack, and some entrepreneuring capitalistic snob sold the unfinished work as the masterpiece it was not.
Body of Lies, 2008
I was pleasantly surprised by DiCaprio; he is definitely maturing as an actor. For some reason I almost felt this film was flirting with Jason Bourne or Enemy of the State, maybe even a little of Cruise in Mission Impossible; CIA types playing games with their pawns. DiCaprio brings a strong sense of American overconfidence melding into his environment like a neon green jacket in a rain forest.
Russel Crowe, on the other hand, was the other extreme. Maybe his role was scripted poorly, or perhaps he was over-pompous. I did not like how he talked via phone-in-the-ear to his operatives everywhere he went - and here the American spy agency is tracking cell phone calls of people on the other side of the planet. Crowe's Ed Hoffman was too much of a dunce to be a jerk.
Another strange thing is that I expected more plot twists. With a title like "Body of Lies" and a movie about spy games, I didn't get much double-crossing or sleight of hands going on. However, I did thoroughly enjoy Mark Strong's Hani character, including his delightful sharp wit and no-nonsense approach - yes, even his manipulations of the political machine and his own pawns. In fact, I think that made the setting in Jordan all the more delicious, one-upping the US government at their own game.
Analyze That, 2002
For a film that is 3 years younger than Analyze This, That felt like it was shot the day after. And the crying just gets worse. And then to throw a musical on Deniro's character... that was just plain painful.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)