"This is Berk. It's twelve days north of Hopelessness and a few degrees south of Freezing to Death. It's located solidly on the Meridian of Misery." Thus begins Dreamworks' "How to Train Your Dragon," a wildly adventuresome movie for the whole family.
Berk, a Viking village apparently located somewhere in Scotland, is plagued regularly by various types of dragons, who steal the livestock and set buildings aflame. Most of the Vikings bravely fight off the beasts, but Hiccup Horrendous Haddock III, the adolescent son of the chief (Stoick the Vast), is not like most Vikings. He is small, clever, inventive, and sarcastic, and most importantly - NOT a warrior. Think Eric Foreman from "That 70's Show" or Smalls from "The Sandlot." As such, Hiccup is an outcast in his village, wanting nothing more than to be like everyone else.
Everything changes when he encounters a Night Fury dragon (offspring of Lightning and Death), the most elusive and dangerous breed known to man. While unexpectantly befriending the dragon, whom he names Toothless, Hiccup also trains with the other Viking teens in dragon combat. During his time with Toothless, he discovers everything the Vikings thought they knew about dragons is horribly incorrect; the beasts, usually considered "extremely dangerous - kill on sight" are simply misunderstood. Trying to convince the other Vikings (especially his father) of this fact is another challenge all together.
This movie has many great attributes. The animation (particularly in 3-D, if you choose to see that version) is superb. To me, even though the characters are intentionally cartoonish, the realism of everything is quite amazing. They have pores on their faces. Individual hairs on their heads and on their fur clothing stand out. The landscape, the way the sun glints off the water, it's all so real. There's an incredible attention to detail that is subtle, it does not hit you over the head. Even the way the dragons move harkens back to the days when animators welcomed wild animals into their studio so they could study their movements (like in "The Lion King." Although, I have to admit, they probably did not do that for this movie). (You might recognize some of Toothless's characteristics; a couple of people who worked on this film were also behind "Lilo & Stitch.") The action sequences are sophisticated and advanced for a film of this genre and target audience.
The four principal characters were well-cast. The voice of Hiccup is Jay Baruchel (most recently seen in "She's Out of My League"), who is perfect for the awkward, not traditionally cool kind of guy. Gerard Butler has the thundering Scottish accent that resonates well in an intimidating Viking leader. Craig Ferguson also lends his Scottishness to the film as the comedic and handicapped Gobber the Belch, the trainer in dragon combat. He was quite amusing, especially in the variety of prosthetic hands he uses. America Ferrera plays Astrid, the tough yet pretty Viking youth at the top of the combat class. She's feisty and strong, like many characters Ferrera portrays (although Astrid is blonde...not like Ferrera). The supporting cast did a decent job, but I feel some of their talent didn't come across well, or it didn't really matter if a "big name" person voiced their characters (such as Jonah Hill and Kristen Wiig).
Aside from the people behind the voices, the script is incredibly witty and funny. It's not your typical children's fare where the humor is too slapstick and dialogue too infantile. Yes, the movie has its silly moments, but they are surpassed by a "man and beast" story that fully envelops the audience with surprising depth.
Additionally, the movie's score (always a big influence on my opinion) was stirring and powerful, fitting for a more epic movie, yet perfect for this one. I downloaded it the day after I saw the movie ($7.99 for over 20 tracks? Not bad!).
Overall, "How to Train Your Dragon" has adventure, heart, and humor. It's perfect for families, but even if you don't have kids, go see it. It might just be my favorite movie of the year so far.
Sunday, April 25, 2010
Wednesday, April 7, 2010
Why "Glee" makes me smile
I was not an original Gleek. I saw the ads for the show before the pilot aired, but it wasn't until Josh Groban had a guest appearance on the third episode that I actually tuned in to watch. I admit, I was slightly confused because I had no clue who was who in a very diverse ensemble cast. I also admit that I wasn't hooked right away; I would catch another episode here and there, but I think it must have interfered with another show, or work, or fun.
But now that I have nearly worn out my DVDs of the first season and belted the tunes out in my car, I admit that I am a full-blown Gleek, completely excited for its mid-season return next Tuesday. Why is this show so capitvating to me (now)? Read on, my friend.
Of course, I have to start with the music. It is, after all, a show about a glee club. The arrangements of all the musical numbers are wonderful. Additionally, I like that some of the songs are 'performance' numbers, in which the glee club is rehearsing for competition, or actually in competition with other choirs (such as the first season's finale, "Sectionals"), and some of the songs are kind of thrown in to embellish plot lines. Either way, you know that every episode is going to have at least one really great number.
The writing is extremely quirky and real. While there are serious moments and serious issues contained within the show, it is essentially a musical comedy. Some of the lines have made me nearly fall out of my chair laughing (Favourite: "'Who is Josh Groban?' KILL YOURSELF!"). And many other lines (sometimes delivered as internal monologues) simply ring true to how we all felt as awkward teenagers dealing with the pressures of being awkward teenagers.
None of the above would come together as a successful show if it weren't for the cast. I appreciate how none of the actors is completely gorgeous (although I think Quinn's character has the longest eyelashes I've ever seen), and the glee club is intentionally diverse. You have the club's star, Rachel, who is perky (annoyingly so), perfectionistic, and proudly Jewish. Her "leading man" is the football team's quarterback, tall and often naive Finn. Except...Finn is dating the cheerleading captain Quinn, creating that popular couple we all knew in our high schools (only popularity and glee club do not often coincide). Additionally, there is Mercedes, the larger black girl who can belt with pipes like none other; Artie, the shy wheelchair-bound geek; Tina, the Asian punk rocker who is surprisingly timid; Puck, the badass mohawked tough guy; and Kurt, the gay fashionista who sings soprano. Then there are some background club members who don't get many lines or solos, but fill out the group well. Teaching/mentoring them is Will, the Spanish teacher and former glee member (back when he was a student at McKinley High), who is trying to balance his glee club work with his home life, dealing with his wife Terri, who is wonderfully high-strung. And one of the more standout cast members: Sue Sylvester, the coach of the Cheerios cheerleaders who has it out for Will and the glee kids (because their existence takes money away from her award-winning cheer people). She's amazingly infuriating. Yet, we get peeks at a softer side, which creates dimension. Other honorable mentions in the cast include Emma, the guidance counselor who is an extreme germiphobe with humongous eyes and a cute way of speaking.
Anyway, I do wish the show displayed more talent from different people...We know Rachel can sing, we know she harmonizes well with Finn, and we know Mercedes has a huge voice. I wish Puck got more leads, and I definitely wish Kurt had much more screentime and song solos. We've basically only heard him once, when he competes in a diva-off with Rachel for the song "Defying Gravity" from Wicked. He sang the song as good as she did, if not better, and the duet of the song on the soundtrack is wonderful. He has a fantastic voice, and I wish they would show it off more.
Wow, this post is an extremely long blog...I apologize for my rant, but if people had any doubt about this show, I urge you to give it a try. I would recommend starting from the beginning, though. The evolution of the show and its cast is enjoyable to witness. It's a fun-filled, smile-inducing, not-really-nostalgic look at high school in all its stereotypical-ness, but it's funny, and the music is great.
But now that I have nearly worn out my DVDs of the first season and belted the tunes out in my car, I admit that I am a full-blown Gleek, completely excited for its mid-season return next Tuesday. Why is this show so capitvating to me (now)? Read on, my friend.
Of course, I have to start with the music. It is, after all, a show about a glee club. The arrangements of all the musical numbers are wonderful. Additionally, I like that some of the songs are 'performance' numbers, in which the glee club is rehearsing for competition, or actually in competition with other choirs (such as the first season's finale, "Sectionals"), and some of the songs are kind of thrown in to embellish plot lines. Either way, you know that every episode is going to have at least one really great number.
The writing is extremely quirky and real. While there are serious moments and serious issues contained within the show, it is essentially a musical comedy. Some of the lines have made me nearly fall out of my chair laughing (Favourite: "'Who is Josh Groban?' KILL YOURSELF!"). And many other lines (sometimes delivered as internal monologues) simply ring true to how we all felt as awkward teenagers dealing with the pressures of being awkward teenagers.
None of the above would come together as a successful show if it weren't for the cast. I appreciate how none of the actors is completely gorgeous (although I think Quinn's character has the longest eyelashes I've ever seen), and the glee club is intentionally diverse. You have the club's star, Rachel, who is perky (annoyingly so), perfectionistic, and proudly Jewish. Her "leading man" is the football team's quarterback, tall and often naive Finn. Except...Finn is dating the cheerleading captain Quinn, creating that popular couple we all knew in our high schools (only popularity and glee club do not often coincide). Additionally, there is Mercedes, the larger black girl who can belt with pipes like none other; Artie, the shy wheelchair-bound geek; Tina, the Asian punk rocker who is surprisingly timid; Puck, the badass mohawked tough guy; and Kurt, the gay fashionista who sings soprano. Then there are some background club members who don't get many lines or solos, but fill out the group well. Teaching/mentoring them is Will, the Spanish teacher and former glee member (back when he was a student at McKinley High), who is trying to balance his glee club work with his home life, dealing with his wife Terri, who is wonderfully high-strung. And one of the more standout cast members: Sue Sylvester, the coach of the Cheerios cheerleaders who has it out for Will and the glee kids (because their existence takes money away from her award-winning cheer people). She's amazingly infuriating. Yet, we get peeks at a softer side, which creates dimension. Other honorable mentions in the cast include Emma, the guidance counselor who is an extreme germiphobe with humongous eyes and a cute way of speaking.
Anyway, I do wish the show displayed more talent from different people...We know Rachel can sing, we know she harmonizes well with Finn, and we know Mercedes has a huge voice. I wish Puck got more leads, and I definitely wish Kurt had much more screentime and song solos. We've basically only heard him once, when he competes in a diva-off with Rachel for the song "Defying Gravity" from Wicked. He sang the song as good as she did, if not better, and the duet of the song on the soundtrack is wonderful. He has a fantastic voice, and I wish they would show it off more.
Wow, this post is an extremely long blog...I apologize for my rant, but if people had any doubt about this show, I urge you to give it a try. I would recommend starting from the beginning, though. The evolution of the show and its cast is enjoyable to witness. It's a fun-filled, smile-inducing, not-really-nostalgic look at high school in all its stereotypical-ness, but it's funny, and the music is great.
Wednesday, March 31, 2010
Wondering about Wonderland?
I was super excited for Tim Burton's take on the trippy "Alice in Wonderland." After all, who better to produce a crazily imaginative version of Lewis Carroll's literary nonsense? I was not disappointed, nor was I exceedingly impressed. Be forewarned, this review might contain accidental spoilers.
First of all, I have to say that I did not think the 3-D experience was entirely necessary for this film. While the animation was good, to be enveloped within the graphics was not important for the story-telling. I also felt the graphics were not quite as...authentic as past Burton films (for instance, our first look into Willy Wonka's factory was an actual set, not a green screen). But, on the other hand, 3-D is the newest trend in movie-making, and I'm always willing to try in out.
On to the story. I loved the ambiance, both of the Victorian world and that of Wonderland (or Underland, depending on whom you ask). Tim Burton always does a great job with tones and colours (think of the muted grays and vivid reds in "Sleepy Hollow" and "Sweeney Todd," or the contrasting worlds in "The Corpse Bride"), and Alice was no different. The rigid, stuffy world of Britain is awash with neutrals, whites and blues. Into this, Alice nearly disappears, considering her complexion is so porcelain. (This is an interesting juxtaposition, since Alice is "out of place" in her world, but more on that later.) Wonderland, on the other hand, contains colourful landscapes and vibrant vegetation. The Queen of Hearts' realm is dark and not-quite-evil, while her sister's domain is pure and pristine silvers and whites (just a little overkill on the symbolism and such, but there you have it). And the Mad Hatter is bedecked in flamboyant hues to match his wild personality.
As far as the acting goes, I thought such a big-name cast could have brought a little more to the table. Upon my first viewing of the film, I thought many of the characters were a little underdeveloped, but once I researched a little of the movie's production, and saw the movie again, I was able to appreciate more of the actors' characterizations.
Mia Wasikowska, in her first leading role, did not quite live up to my expectations as Alice. Yes, she went through the motions, but after all she goes through, I would expect a person to be slightly more altered. Although she thinks it's all a dream, it should not mean that her reactions differ from those of reality, if indeed everything were happening for real. She just seemed wooden and emotionless for much of the movie, even though she was saying things that would require conviction or feistiness. She was not all-around terrible, but I would have liked to have seen much MORE.
I admit I did not quite understand Johnny Depp as the Mad Hatter – at first. Yes, he was adequately schizophrenic, and he looked the part, but I thought him rather silly overall (ie: the futterwacken? Really?). But once I read about it more, I discovered Depp wanted to ground a character who is often seen as two-dimensional. His split personality made it so he could be goofy and nonsensical, while his darker (Scottish…mwahaha) side provided a functional character (particularly when he brings his Scottish personality to the battlefield, complete with kilt and broadsword). Although as far as crazy, tea-loving characters go, my favourite was the March Hare. He was just all-out insane, but his character accomplishes nothing because his state of mind renders him completely useless (he brings a spoon to the battle).
Helena Bonham Carter was amusing as the strangely-proportioned Iracebeth of Crims, the Red Queen (of Hearts…a combination of two Carroll characters). She was wonderfully quick-tempered, demanding, and immature, just like the toddler she was trying to channel. She was also able to produce the fear royalty often creates amongst their subjects, particularly because she was so inclined to impulsively cut people's heads off. I thought her a decently-worthy adversary.
Anne Hathaway as Mirana of Marmoreal (the White Queen), was another one I didn’t understand at first. I found her to be silly, but it turns out she's supposed to have a darker side as well. This doesn't come across very well, in my mind, but once I knew, I could see it in small instances. But overall, she was amusing. She had that silly, dainty, airy, graceful girliness of a Disney princess, but she was humorous as well, manifested in small gestures and facial expressions that were the exact opposite of what one would expect.
I liked how ambiguous the Blue Caterpillar was, and how creepily the Cheshire Cat oozed (figuratively speaking).
Storywise, this is not a remake of the animated version, nor is it a "reimagining" (according to Burton). It's basically a new story, based upon Carroll's characters, much of the plot deriving from the Jabberwocky poem (which is practically all nonsense, so creating a tangible story out of nothing is slightly impressive). I'm admittedly not familiar with Carroll's "Alice's Adventures in Wonderland" and "Through the Looking Glass," so it did not make much difference to me. It was predictable, but still an entertaining film.
Overall, I liked the movie quite a bit. Perhaps this review is harsher than my actual perception of the film, but I've started thinking about movies in ways in which I can review them, so I start looking deeper. Taken as a whole, however, this movie is a fun adventure into a crazy Wonderland, which is a nice break from the neutral world in which we often find ourselves. I'm not about to go around chasing white rabbits or following instructions on strange bottles of liquid, but I always look to movies to escape everyday monotony for a bit. And this movie accomplished that end, while being reasonably put-together and comprehensive. I'm satisfied.
First of all, I have to say that I did not think the 3-D experience was entirely necessary for this film. While the animation was good, to be enveloped within the graphics was not important for the story-telling. I also felt the graphics were not quite as...authentic as past Burton films (for instance, our first look into Willy Wonka's factory was an actual set, not a green screen). But, on the other hand, 3-D is the newest trend in movie-making, and I'm always willing to try in out.
On to the story. I loved the ambiance, both of the Victorian world and that of Wonderland (or Underland, depending on whom you ask). Tim Burton always does a great job with tones and colours (think of the muted grays and vivid reds in "Sleepy Hollow" and "Sweeney Todd," or the contrasting worlds in "The Corpse Bride"), and Alice was no different. The rigid, stuffy world of Britain is awash with neutrals, whites and blues. Into this, Alice nearly disappears, considering her complexion is so porcelain. (This is an interesting juxtaposition, since Alice is "out of place" in her world, but more on that later.) Wonderland, on the other hand, contains colourful landscapes and vibrant vegetation. The Queen of Hearts' realm is dark and not-quite-evil, while her sister's domain is pure and pristine silvers and whites (just a little overkill on the symbolism and such, but there you have it). And the Mad Hatter is bedecked in flamboyant hues to match his wild personality.
As far as the acting goes, I thought such a big-name cast could have brought a little more to the table. Upon my first viewing of the film, I thought many of the characters were a little underdeveloped, but once I researched a little of the movie's production, and saw the movie again, I was able to appreciate more of the actors' characterizations.
Mia Wasikowska, in her first leading role, did not quite live up to my expectations as Alice. Yes, she went through the motions, but after all she goes through, I would expect a person to be slightly more altered. Although she thinks it's all a dream, it should not mean that her reactions differ from those of reality, if indeed everything were happening for real. She just seemed wooden and emotionless for much of the movie, even though she was saying things that would require conviction or feistiness. She was not all-around terrible, but I would have liked to have seen much MORE.
I admit I did not quite understand Johnny Depp as the Mad Hatter – at first. Yes, he was adequately schizophrenic, and he looked the part, but I thought him rather silly overall (ie: the futterwacken? Really?). But once I read about it more, I discovered Depp wanted to ground a character who is often seen as two-dimensional. His split personality made it so he could be goofy and nonsensical, while his darker (Scottish…mwahaha) side provided a functional character (particularly when he brings his Scottish personality to the battlefield, complete with kilt and broadsword). Although as far as crazy, tea-loving characters go, my favourite was the March Hare. He was just all-out insane, but his character accomplishes nothing because his state of mind renders him completely useless (he brings a spoon to the battle).
Helena Bonham Carter was amusing as the strangely-proportioned Iracebeth of Crims, the Red Queen (of Hearts…a combination of two Carroll characters). She was wonderfully quick-tempered, demanding, and immature, just like the toddler she was trying to channel. She was also able to produce the fear royalty often creates amongst their subjects, particularly because she was so inclined to impulsively cut people's heads off. I thought her a decently-worthy adversary.
Anne Hathaway as Mirana of Marmoreal (the White Queen), was another one I didn’t understand at first. I found her to be silly, but it turns out she's supposed to have a darker side as well. This doesn't come across very well, in my mind, but once I knew, I could see it in small instances. But overall, she was amusing. She had that silly, dainty, airy, graceful girliness of a Disney princess, but she was humorous as well, manifested in small gestures and facial expressions that were the exact opposite of what one would expect.
I liked how ambiguous the Blue Caterpillar was, and how creepily the Cheshire Cat oozed (figuratively speaking).
Storywise, this is not a remake of the animated version, nor is it a "reimagining" (according to Burton). It's basically a new story, based upon Carroll's characters, much of the plot deriving from the Jabberwocky poem (which is practically all nonsense, so creating a tangible story out of nothing is slightly impressive). I'm admittedly not familiar with Carroll's "Alice's Adventures in Wonderland" and "Through the Looking Glass," so it did not make much difference to me. It was predictable, but still an entertaining film.
Overall, I liked the movie quite a bit. Perhaps this review is harsher than my actual perception of the film, but I've started thinking about movies in ways in which I can review them, so I start looking deeper. Taken as a whole, however, this movie is a fun adventure into a crazy Wonderland, which is a nice break from the neutral world in which we often find ourselves. I'm not about to go around chasing white rabbits or following instructions on strange bottles of liquid, but I always look to movies to escape everyday monotony for a bit. And this movie accomplished that end, while being reasonably put-together and comprehensive. I'm satisfied.
Friday, February 19, 2010
"Avatar" review
Visually stunning? Yes. Epic? Yes. At least, wide in its scope. Original? Hardly.
James Cameron's visionary dream is creative and imaginative in its presentation, but it falls short in its story-telling. The world of Pandora is beautiful, full of wild creatures and exotic plants. It is inhabited by the Na'vi people, a race completely unified with Eywa, their deity, the energy that binds and surrounds them. They are threatened by the "Skypeople," humans who abandoned their "dying world" to extract a valuable substance ironically called unobtanium from Pandora's soil, in spite of the fact that the Omaticaya clan of Na'vis live on the richest deposit. To me, it was the cliched tale of greedy people taking what they want from anyone, damned be the consequences. Don't get me wrong - I love nature and am all for going green. I can recognize that we need to appreciate the abundance around us and care for our planet, as well as respect the cultural ways of other people who we may not understand, or with whom we may not agree. Yet the plot behind "Avatar" reminded me of "Fern Gully." Remember "Fern Gully"? Fairies living happily in the rainforest until evil man with his big ugly machines comes to tear it all down? Throw in a little Trail of Tears/indigenous relocation, a bicultural star-crossed romance, and a Matrix-like connection to another world, and you have hit the nail right on the head.
I'm not saying I did not enjoy the movie. Quite the contrary. This was the first non-documentary movie I've seen completely in 3-D (as opposed to IMAX nature films seen at the MN Zoo, and brief scenes in recent "Harry Potter" movies), and I really wish we had been able to see it 3-D in IMAX. Alas, "The Wolfman" chased "Avatar" out of the giant-screen theater in St. Michael, so we settled for 3-D on a regular movie screen. Which is fine. I was still able to appreciate the animation. It's extremely impressive that such a complete world (although did anyone else notice the Na'vi never ate anything?) could simply be pulled from the imagination in such detail and clarity, making dreams that much more tangible. Cameron pulled out all the stops, somehow creating a world by combining the beauty and mystery of both the rainforest and the depths of the oceans. From the heights of the floating mountains, through the vast and open skies, to the forest floors, Pandora is amazing. It did remind me a little of Dinotopia mixed with Naboo, but for a tiny moon, it's full of incredible flora and fauna.
Aside from aesthetics, the tiny cultural details were also quite thorough. Not only did the Na'vi have their own language, they had separate and distinctive clans as well. The creatures with whom the Na'vi interact are reminiscent of animals seen on Earth (at one time or another), but unique in their own ways. Something I particularly liked was the direct link between the Na'vi and the creatures. It solidified the concept of a planet (or moon) with an all-encompassing energy firing like neurons in the brain, connecting everything to everything else.
In addition to the creative details, the actor portrayal was impressive. The use of performance capture ensured that the actors' facial expressions were completely transferred to their computer-generated counterparts. Before seeing the film, I was slightly put off by the appearance of the tall, blue people, but while watching it, it is easy to see how the Na'vi actually look like the actors (especially Sigourney Weaver's...whose avatar TOO closely resembled the actress). Their movements were extremely natural, and it became easy to forget I was watching something designed on computers.
I thought Sam Worthington turned in a very good performance, although I have nothing to which I can compare; I had never seen him in any other movies prior to this. I thought his portrayal of paraplegic ex-Marine Jake Sully, the film's hero, was believable, and his emotional transition from former soldier to invested anthropologist and tribal hero was well done. Not only did his hair become longer and disheveled, but the video diaries of his experiences began awkwardly and became increasingly heartfelt. I also thought it was impressive making his legs appear shriveled and useless (unless they were real...in which case, he must have had one hell of a workout routine for his role as Perseus in "Clash of the Titans"), and his disuse of them seemed natural.
Sigourney Weaver also did a wonderful job in her portrayal of the driven, tough-on-the-outside scientist in charge of the avatar project. I really grew to like her, and she seemed to soften towards Jake as he got deeper into Na'vi culture than she ever had.
Stephen Lang was villainous as Colonel Quaritch, your typical militant let's-blow-things-up bad guy. He had a wicked awesome scar on his head from his first experience on Pandora, and he was extremely determined to do whatever it took to get the Omaticaya away from the unobtanium deposit. He was wonderfully disconnected from the consequences, nonchalantly sipping coffee while watching the Omaticaya's home get destroyed on his orders.
Zoe Saldana, of whom I am not the biggest fan, did a decent job lending her voice and facial expressions to Neytiri, the female Na'vi protagonist, who happens to be the Omaticayan princess and Jake's love interest and cultural teacher. They had fairly good chemistry "on screen," but I felt her role in general was cliched.
Overall, I really enjoyed this movie, and it nearly exceeded my minimal expectations. I knew the story would be so-so and the animation superb, but the combined effect was surprisingly pleasing. It's generally predictable (and for me, that's saying something...I'm usually terrible with plot predictions), but very entertaining. I'm glad I saw it. (I could go into the ethical issue of creating a hybrid creature of human and Na'vi DNA to simply use as a shell to house someone else's mind...but I just don't have the energy.)
James Cameron's visionary dream is creative and imaginative in its presentation, but it falls short in its story-telling. The world of Pandora is beautiful, full of wild creatures and exotic plants. It is inhabited by the Na'vi people, a race completely unified with Eywa, their deity, the energy that binds and surrounds them. They are threatened by the "Skypeople," humans who abandoned their "dying world" to extract a valuable substance ironically called unobtanium from Pandora's soil, in spite of the fact that the Omaticaya clan of Na'vis live on the richest deposit. To me, it was the cliched tale of greedy people taking what they want from anyone, damned be the consequences. Don't get me wrong - I love nature and am all for going green. I can recognize that we need to appreciate the abundance around us and care for our planet, as well as respect the cultural ways of other people who we may not understand, or with whom we may not agree. Yet the plot behind "Avatar" reminded me of "Fern Gully." Remember "Fern Gully"? Fairies living happily in the rainforest until evil man with his big ugly machines comes to tear it all down? Throw in a little Trail of Tears/indigenous relocation, a bicultural star-crossed romance, and a Matrix-like connection to another world, and you have hit the nail right on the head.
I'm not saying I did not enjoy the movie. Quite the contrary. This was the first non-documentary movie I've seen completely in 3-D (as opposed to IMAX nature films seen at the MN Zoo, and brief scenes in recent "Harry Potter" movies), and I really wish we had been able to see it 3-D in IMAX. Alas, "The Wolfman" chased "Avatar" out of the giant-screen theater in St. Michael, so we settled for 3-D on a regular movie screen. Which is fine. I was still able to appreciate the animation. It's extremely impressive that such a complete world (although did anyone else notice the Na'vi never ate anything?) could simply be pulled from the imagination in such detail and clarity, making dreams that much more tangible. Cameron pulled out all the stops, somehow creating a world by combining the beauty and mystery of both the rainforest and the depths of the oceans. From the heights of the floating mountains, through the vast and open skies, to the forest floors, Pandora is amazing. It did remind me a little of Dinotopia mixed with Naboo, but for a tiny moon, it's full of incredible flora and fauna.
Aside from aesthetics, the tiny cultural details were also quite thorough. Not only did the Na'vi have their own language, they had separate and distinctive clans as well. The creatures with whom the Na'vi interact are reminiscent of animals seen on Earth (at one time or another), but unique in their own ways. Something I particularly liked was the direct link between the Na'vi and the creatures. It solidified the concept of a planet (or moon) with an all-encompassing energy firing like neurons in the brain, connecting everything to everything else.
In addition to the creative details, the actor portrayal was impressive. The use of performance capture ensured that the actors' facial expressions were completely transferred to their computer-generated counterparts. Before seeing the film, I was slightly put off by the appearance of the tall, blue people, but while watching it, it is easy to see how the Na'vi actually look like the actors (especially Sigourney Weaver's...whose avatar TOO closely resembled the actress). Their movements were extremely natural, and it became easy to forget I was watching something designed on computers.
I thought Sam Worthington turned in a very good performance, although I have nothing to which I can compare; I had never seen him in any other movies prior to this. I thought his portrayal of paraplegic ex-Marine Jake Sully, the film's hero, was believable, and his emotional transition from former soldier to invested anthropologist and tribal hero was well done. Not only did his hair become longer and disheveled, but the video diaries of his experiences began awkwardly and became increasingly heartfelt. I also thought it was impressive making his legs appear shriveled and useless (unless they were real...in which case, he must have had one hell of a workout routine for his role as Perseus in "Clash of the Titans"), and his disuse of them seemed natural.
Sigourney Weaver also did a wonderful job in her portrayal of the driven, tough-on-the-outside scientist in charge of the avatar project. I really grew to like her, and she seemed to soften towards Jake as he got deeper into Na'vi culture than she ever had.
Stephen Lang was villainous as Colonel Quaritch, your typical militant let's-blow-things-up bad guy. He had a wicked awesome scar on his head from his first experience on Pandora, and he was extremely determined to do whatever it took to get the Omaticaya away from the unobtanium deposit. He was wonderfully disconnected from the consequences, nonchalantly sipping coffee while watching the Omaticaya's home get destroyed on his orders.
Zoe Saldana, of whom I am not the biggest fan, did a decent job lending her voice and facial expressions to Neytiri, the female Na'vi protagonist, who happens to be the Omaticayan princess and Jake's love interest and cultural teacher. They had fairly good chemistry "on screen," but I felt her role in general was cliched.
Overall, I really enjoyed this movie, and it nearly exceeded my minimal expectations. I knew the story would be so-so and the animation superb, but the combined effect was surprisingly pleasing. It's generally predictable (and for me, that's saying something...I'm usually terrible with plot predictions), but very entertaining. I'm glad I saw it. (I could go into the ethical issue of creating a hybrid creature of human and Na'vi DNA to simply use as a shell to house someone else's mind...but I just don't have the energy.)
Friday, December 18, 2009
Review of "The Young Victoria" (4 out of 5 stars)
The movie “The Young Victoria” boasts a core cast of very well-known British actors, so my expectations were relatively high. Did it disappoint, you ask? The answer is, “Not really.”
Taken at face value, I really enjoyed the film. The cast was indeed very good, living up to about 93% of their potential, I’d say. Emily Blunt (“The Devil Wears Prada,” “Sunshine Cleaning,” and a really great episode of “The Simpsons,” in which Blunt’s character and Lisa Simpson become Grobanites and go to a magical land called “Equalia,” where Josh Groban music plays all the time), in the title role, was charming and feisty. Rupert Friend (“Pride and Prejudice”) as Prince Albert was warm and encouraging, befitting his friendly face - and name - much more than that dastardly Mr. Wickham...even if his accent did come and go. Paul Bettany (“A Knight’s Tale,” “The Da Vinci Code”...among others. I love him!), was definitely cool and calculating, yet gentlemanly, as the Whig PM and Victoria’s first advisor. Mark Strong (“Stardust,” “Sherlock Holmes”) was the typical brooding bad guy, but hey, it works for him. (Gotta love an actor that embraces the fact that he could probably never play a “good” guy...) Miranda Richardson (“Phantom of the Opera,” “Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire”) was the somewhat detached and manipulated mother of Victoria, but I feel her character could have had more depth. Perhaps her role wasn’t written that way. It almost works. Jim Broadbent (“Moulin Rouge,” “The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe,” “Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince”) made me giggle in his role as the ailing (and slightly tipsy) King William IV, Victoria’s predecessor. He was kind and uncle-y, which is good, since William was Victoria’s uncle. Harriet Walter (“Sense and Sensibility,” “Atonement”), as Queen Adelaide, was the voice of reason and experience to counter Victoria’s youth and naïveté. I liked her character a lot, however scarce her screen time may have been.
Aside from the cast, the story itself was just a brief glimpse at the life and reign of Queen Victoria. From the beginning, I was intrigued by this woman of whom I knew very little (my area of “expertise” is somewhat farther in the past than her time). The political games people play with other people in order to advance their own purposes was quite clear throughout, but a lot of heart was put in it as well. Victoria and Albert were, above all things, young people in extraordinary circumstances. Victoria muses at the beginning of the film, “What girl does not want to grow up a princess?” But the strains of a restricted lifestyle and being used as a pawn can be frustrating and wearying. Albert puts it cleverly: “Then you had better master the rules of the game until you play it better than they can.”
(Insert tangent on well-written lines: Queen Adelaide says to Victoria, “He's a politician. And politicians, whatever their creed, always resent the monarchy. They pass through, you stay.” And one for the heartstrings: Albert to Victoria, “You're the only wife I've got or ever will have. You are my whole existence, and I will love you until my very last breath.” *End tangent.)
The story was well supported by exquisite sets, extravagant costumes (Emily Blunt’s insured for £10,000 EACH), and a magnificent score by Ilan Eshkeri (“Stardust”). The only outright problem I really had with the movie was the ending...to me, it seemed like production said, “The movie’s gone on for this long, let’s wrap it up,” and indeed they did...in like three minutes. I know the movie is “The YOUNG Victoria,” and I suppose it would have been difficult to choose a breaking-off point, but I would have liked a little more (runtime: 100 minutes). Yet hopes for a sequel (which would probably be ill-advised anyway) were dashed by the all-encompassing written-out summary of what happened for the rest of Victoria’s reign intermixed with brief glimpses of the characters. You know, the kind of summary that any movie based on historical facts is apt to have. Oh well. I enjoyed the film immensely.
I do have to say it’s more of a gripping romance/drama than an intense portrayal of a monarchy (ie: “Elizabeth” and “Elizabeth: The Golden Age”). This is perhaps because, as far as I can tell, there was not a whole lot of political turmoil at the time. Whereas Elizabeth had to deal with accused plots to overturn her sister, violent religious instability during the Inquisition, and wars with Spain (Armada, anyone?...Can you tell where my aforementioned “expertise” rests?), Victoria ruled during an era of economic growth, becoming Britain’s longest ruling monarch (63 years). By the Victoria’s time, however, the monarch was not the sole ruler of the realm anymore, as was the case with Elizabeth, but more akin to the figurehead and symbol of Britain with which we are familiar now. All of this could make for a dull movie, but “The Young Victoria” is gratifying enough, and serious enough (it’s kind of nice to see a movie about a monarch without any explicit sex or nudity) to be a real winner. Emily Blunt has already received a nomination for Best Actress in a Motion Picture - Drama for the Golden Globes...and for the British Independent Film Awards, the Broadcast Film Critics Association Awards, and the Satellite Awards. I hope the Price Waterhouse Coopers guys are paying attention.
**Shout out to Mrs. Heidi Thulin, for getting us those free tickets to the advance sceening!
Taken at face value, I really enjoyed the film. The cast was indeed very good, living up to about 93% of their potential, I’d say. Emily Blunt (“The Devil Wears Prada,” “Sunshine Cleaning,” and a really great episode of “The Simpsons,” in which Blunt’s character and Lisa Simpson become Grobanites and go to a magical land called “Equalia,” where Josh Groban music plays all the time), in the title role, was charming and feisty. Rupert Friend (“Pride and Prejudice”) as Prince Albert was warm and encouraging, befitting his friendly face - and name - much more than that dastardly Mr. Wickham...even if his accent did come and go. Paul Bettany (“A Knight’s Tale,” “The Da Vinci Code”...among others. I love him!), was definitely cool and calculating, yet gentlemanly, as the Whig PM and Victoria’s first advisor. Mark Strong (“Stardust,” “Sherlock Holmes”) was the typical brooding bad guy, but hey, it works for him. (Gotta love an actor that embraces the fact that he could probably never play a “good” guy...) Miranda Richardson (“Phantom of the Opera,” “Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire”) was the somewhat detached and manipulated mother of Victoria, but I feel her character could have had more depth. Perhaps her role wasn’t written that way. It almost works. Jim Broadbent (“Moulin Rouge,” “The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe,” “Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince”) made me giggle in his role as the ailing (and slightly tipsy) King William IV, Victoria’s predecessor. He was kind and uncle-y, which is good, since William was Victoria’s uncle. Harriet Walter (“Sense and Sensibility,” “Atonement”), as Queen Adelaide, was the voice of reason and experience to counter Victoria’s youth and naïveté. I liked her character a lot, however scarce her screen time may have been.
Aside from the cast, the story itself was just a brief glimpse at the life and reign of Queen Victoria. From the beginning, I was intrigued by this woman of whom I knew very little (my area of “expertise” is somewhat farther in the past than her time). The political games people play with other people in order to advance their own purposes was quite clear throughout, but a lot of heart was put in it as well. Victoria and Albert were, above all things, young people in extraordinary circumstances. Victoria muses at the beginning of the film, “What girl does not want to grow up a princess?” But the strains of a restricted lifestyle and being used as a pawn can be frustrating and wearying. Albert puts it cleverly: “Then you had better master the rules of the game until you play it better than they can.”
(Insert tangent on well-written lines: Queen Adelaide says to Victoria, “He's a politician. And politicians, whatever their creed, always resent the monarchy. They pass through, you stay.” And one for the heartstrings: Albert to Victoria, “You're the only wife I've got or ever will have. You are my whole existence, and I will love you until my very last breath.” *End tangent.)
The story was well supported by exquisite sets, extravagant costumes (Emily Blunt’s insured for £10,000 EACH), and a magnificent score by Ilan Eshkeri (“Stardust”). The only outright problem I really had with the movie was the ending...to me, it seemed like production said, “The movie’s gone on for this long, let’s wrap it up,” and indeed they did...in like three minutes. I know the movie is “The YOUNG Victoria,” and I suppose it would have been difficult to choose a breaking-off point, but I would have liked a little more (runtime: 100 minutes). Yet hopes for a sequel (which would probably be ill-advised anyway) were dashed by the all-encompassing written-out summary of what happened for the rest of Victoria’s reign intermixed with brief glimpses of the characters. You know, the kind of summary that any movie based on historical facts is apt to have. Oh well. I enjoyed the film immensely.
I do have to say it’s more of a gripping romance/drama than an intense portrayal of a monarchy (ie: “Elizabeth” and “Elizabeth: The Golden Age”). This is perhaps because, as far as I can tell, there was not a whole lot of political turmoil at the time. Whereas Elizabeth had to deal with accused plots to overturn her sister, violent religious instability during the Inquisition, and wars with Spain (Armada, anyone?...Can you tell where my aforementioned “expertise” rests?), Victoria ruled during an era of economic growth, becoming Britain’s longest ruling monarch (63 years). By the Victoria’s time, however, the monarch was not the sole ruler of the realm anymore, as was the case with Elizabeth, but more akin to the figurehead and symbol of Britain with which we are familiar now. All of this could make for a dull movie, but “The Young Victoria” is gratifying enough, and serious enough (it’s kind of nice to see a movie about a monarch without any explicit sex or nudity) to be a real winner. Emily Blunt has already received a nomination for Best Actress in a Motion Picture - Drama for the Golden Globes...and for the British Independent Film Awards, the Broadcast Film Critics Association Awards, and the Satellite Awards. I hope the Price Waterhouse Coopers guys are paying attention.
**Shout out to Mrs. Heidi Thulin, for getting us those free tickets to the advance sceening!
Friday, September 11, 2009
Season of mists and mellow fruitfulness...
I love fall. Absolutely love it. I love cloudy, breezy, crisp days. I love swirling leaves scattered across the sidewalk and making the grass more interesting. The sky somehow changes, too, and the blue is different than it was during the summer. It's fantastic.
I realized when I was walking my dog today that I feel more at leisure to enjoy the weather. While the end of summer/leaves changing colors in Maple Grove isn't nearly as pretty as up in Collegeville, I'm (sadly) much less busy, so things like dog walks are times in which I can sit back (minus the fact that I am walking) and enjoy the weather, instead of noting it as I quickly dash off to class or work or something. I still miss campus life quite a lot, but today was just a nice reminder that things aren't so bad on this side of the diploma.
Speaking of, I'm still looking for a job...I could apply for a 'Research Assistant' position at the MHS library, but it's super part time, kinda far away, and not exactly what I want. But, I would be there, at least, perhaps regularly seeing people who work in fields more directly related to what I want to do. It's hard, though...is it worth it? I'd be narrowing my availability at Byerly's (where I'm only getting scheduled 15 hours/week, in spite of being available during the entirety of store hours...so would it really make that big of a difference?), but I really don't want to let potential opportunities pass just to please my job since junior high. Yes, there's a sort of security there, but at the same time, it's nearly not sustaining me financially (since I only get those 15 hours, unless I pick up other shifts, which I have done quite a lot). I did apply for an 'Exhibit Props Specialist' position at the Minnesota Children's Museum, but I have not yet heard back from them. I will contact them next week. I think that might have been a part-time position as well, so...I guess it wouldn't hurt to apply for the library job...but it's just not quite the stepping stone I want it to be, you know? It's a lot to ponder. They need to give more time between announcing jobs and the application deadline!
In completely unrelatedness, I LOVE THE MINNESOTA RENAISSANCE FESTIVAL. If you didn't already know that, however, you really don't know me very well. I LIVE for weekends mid-August through the end of September (or beginning of October, as it happens to be this year). So far, I've gone twice and am planning on going again at least once more. If I do indeed go twice more, I will have been there every other weekend of its 2009 run. I like that. :) This year, I purchased a new bodice and a peasant top to go underneath. I also bought some jewelry and a pottery goblet. I also bought a leather purse/belt (kind of the medieval version of a fanny pack...only...way cooler?) so I'm not carrying a shoulder bag anymore (because it hurt my shoulder--I tend to pull down on the bag--and because it was not period enough for my ensemble). I wish I could live there. Except it's so dusty.
Anyway...I think I'll clean my room a little before heading to work at 4:30. Cheers!
I realized when I was walking my dog today that I feel more at leisure to enjoy the weather. While the end of summer/leaves changing colors in Maple Grove isn't nearly as pretty as up in Collegeville, I'm (sadly) much less busy, so things like dog walks are times in which I can sit back (minus the fact that I am walking) and enjoy the weather, instead of noting it as I quickly dash off to class or work or something. I still miss campus life quite a lot, but today was just a nice reminder that things aren't so bad on this side of the diploma.
Speaking of, I'm still looking for a job...I could apply for a 'Research Assistant' position at the MHS library, but it's super part time, kinda far away, and not exactly what I want. But, I would be there, at least, perhaps regularly seeing people who work in fields more directly related to what I want to do. It's hard, though...is it worth it? I'd be narrowing my availability at Byerly's (where I'm only getting scheduled 15 hours/week, in spite of being available during the entirety of store hours...so would it really make that big of a difference?), but I really don't want to let potential opportunities pass just to please my job since junior high. Yes, there's a sort of security there, but at the same time, it's nearly not sustaining me financially (since I only get those 15 hours, unless I pick up other shifts, which I have done quite a lot). I did apply for an 'Exhibit Props Specialist' position at the Minnesota Children's Museum, but I have not yet heard back from them. I will contact them next week. I think that might have been a part-time position as well, so...I guess it wouldn't hurt to apply for the library job...but it's just not quite the stepping stone I want it to be, you know? It's a lot to ponder. They need to give more time between announcing jobs and the application deadline!
In completely unrelatedness, I LOVE THE MINNESOTA RENAISSANCE FESTIVAL. If you didn't already know that, however, you really don't know me very well. I LIVE for weekends mid-August through the end of September (or beginning of October, as it happens to be this year). So far, I've gone twice and am planning on going again at least once more. If I do indeed go twice more, I will have been there every other weekend of its 2009 run. I like that. :) This year, I purchased a new bodice and a peasant top to go underneath. I also bought some jewelry and a pottery goblet. I also bought a leather purse/belt (kind of the medieval version of a fanny pack...only...way cooler?) so I'm not carrying a shoulder bag anymore (because it hurt my shoulder--I tend to pull down on the bag--and because it was not period enough for my ensemble). I wish I could live there. Except it's so dusty.
Anyway...I think I'll clean my room a little before heading to work at 4:30. Cheers!
Wednesday, August 12, 2009
Starry-Eyed and Vaguely Discontented
Okay, this whole "back to school" thing is really getting to me! I see it everywhere--at stores, in magazines, on Facebook...people are heading back to school. I, alas, am not. My four years at CSB/SJU were absolutely amazing. They were difficult, fun, heartbreaking, and life-changing. I met the most wonderful people, many of whom I will never see again. I grew in ways I never would have foreseen (me?! Lead songs?! By myself?!). I learned so much, not just in classes, but about other people, about myself, and about the world. That's what college is for, yes? So, why does the experience have to stop after four years? (Because financial aid only lasts four years.) I'm truly jealous of the students who get to go back.
When I graduated from high school, I was so ready to get out. I was way more mature than the sophomores who thought they were God's gifts to the world, I was psyched about going to St. Ben's. Now...the future's not bleak, but it feels that way sometimes. The trip to Europe was fantastic, and I miss it a lot. I've been trying to arrange my life right now in a way that makes me happy, but I am cursed to dwell on the past (history major). I remember late-night roommate chats. I remember being in the presence of truly gifted people, shaping and sharing their gifts. I remember feeling independent and confident. College was just this awesome bubble that challenged me without making me feel abandoned. Real life was kept at bay by things like papers and finals and honors theses. I know that many people look back on college as the best years of their lives, and I can understand from where they're coming. I don't want to always look back. I want to look forward. I want to look at right now and be happy with where I am, who I am, and what's happening. I know I'll get there eventually, but I thought maybe I would have gotten there by now. But right now my life is just a cycle of frantically trying to scrape up as many hours at Byerly's as possible and attempting to squeeze in fun to keep me sane. I'm trying to organize things at home so they have more of a sense of permanency, but I'm still looking for a way out.
One day at a time, I guess. Baby steps. But I still wish I were going back to campus.
When I graduated from high school, I was so ready to get out. I was way more mature than the sophomores who thought they were God's gifts to the world, I was psyched about going to St. Ben's. Now...the future's not bleak, but it feels that way sometimes. The trip to Europe was fantastic, and I miss it a lot. I've been trying to arrange my life right now in a way that makes me happy, but I am cursed to dwell on the past (history major). I remember late-night roommate chats. I remember being in the presence of truly gifted people, shaping and sharing their gifts. I remember feeling independent and confident. College was just this awesome bubble that challenged me without making me feel abandoned. Real life was kept at bay by things like papers and finals and honors theses. I know that many people look back on college as the best years of their lives, and I can understand from where they're coming. I don't want to always look back. I want to look forward. I want to look at right now and be happy with where I am, who I am, and what's happening. I know I'll get there eventually, but I thought maybe I would have gotten there by now. But right now my life is just a cycle of frantically trying to scrape up as many hours at Byerly's as possible and attempting to squeeze in fun to keep me sane. I'm trying to organize things at home so they have more of a sense of permanency, but I'm still looking for a way out.
One day at a time, I guess. Baby steps. But I still wish I were going back to campus.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)