Avatar: The Way of Water.

Review #1942: Avatar: The Way of Water.

Cast: 

Sam Worthington (Jake Sully), Zoe Saldana (Neytiri), Sigourney Weaver (Kiri / Dr. Grace Augustine), Stephen Lang (Colonel Miles Quaritch), Kate Winslet (Ronal), Cliff Curtis (Tonowari), Joel David Moore (Norm), CCH Pounder (Mo'at), Edie Falco (General Ardmore), Brendan Cowell (Scoresby), Jemaine Clement (Dr. Garvin), Jamie Flatters (Neteyam), Britain Dalton (Lo'ak), Trinity Jo-Li Bliss (Tuk), Jack Champion (Spider), Bailey Bass (Tsireya), Filip Geljo (Aonung), Duane Evans Jr. (Rotxo), and Giovanni Ribisi (Selfridge) Directed by James Cameron (#001 - Terminator 2: Judgement Day, #063 - The Terminator, #388 - Avatar, #574 - Aliens, #606 - True Lies, #1515 - Titanic)

Review: 

 "It will be a natural extension of all the themes, and the characters, and the spiritual undercurrents. Basically, if you loved the first movie, you're gonna love these movies, and if you hated it, you're probably gonna hate these. If you loved it at the time, and you said later you hated it, you're probably gonna love these."

Honestly, I hadn't thought of Avatar (2009) too much since I saw it the one time in 2013. Aside for the countless jokes about it being a blue version of Dances with Wolves or being like Ferngully: The Last Rainforest, I didn't really anticipate a sequel coming out that would elevate what I felt was pretty average fare. It can be granted that it was a movie that succeeded on the goals of presenting an old-fashioned jungle adventure with some sort of environmental conscience that basically took inspiration from countless adventure and science fiction books that made a basic setup in order to show some really pretty special effects (if you saw it in 3D, well, that probably went double). Cameron initially stated that the success of Avatar would guarantee two sequels. In 2016 (two years after Cameron had stated there would be sequels released in 2014 and 2015), Cameron stated that there would be four sequels, all shot simultaneously (with this film being done for a budget over $350 million), for which the sequels would have sperate stories that "have an overall arc inclusive of the first film." Here is a fun writing listing: the story was done by Cameron, Rick Jaffa, and Amanda Silver, while the screenplay was done by Cameron, Jaffa, Silver, and Josh Friedman and Shane Salerno. Nine of the original cast members from the first film return for this film, which had started shooting in 2017. Trying to do performance capture underwater ended up taking over a year to do because a whole process had to be invented for it (keep in mind, actors had to undergo training to be able to breathe longer than what you might expect, and a record for longest breath held during filming of an underwater scene was set...at seven minutes).

I will give this much credit: the best way to see the film is the way all films should be seen...in a theater. Granted, as much as I don't particularly care for 3D, it was a pretty interesting experience to immerse oneself. So yes, if you want a film that has turned Avatar into a generational family saga that happens to dabble with themes of environmentalism and colonization with a runtime of 192 minutes, here you are. Would you be surprised to know that the movie is a great visual experience but only just an average epic besides that element? It manages to be both diverting and amusing in all of the weird ways that I had anticipated, one that plays off many interesting viewing moments to go along with dialogue that is either family cliche or flat-out odd cliche (hearing "cuz", for example). Yes, a movie made in 2022 looks pretty, big shock. It is pretty good, although I would hope for more when it comes to the next film. It lingers on said imagery at times, whether that involves certain moments of higher frame rate or images from the sea or...you get the idea. 192 minutes means one viewing will either prove fair for the theater experience or daunting. Eh, it was fine. Oh, right, there is acting in the film. Worthington technically does fine in the morph to "family man", albeit with voiceover lines that basically states the obvious. Saldana is the other side of the family coin of, well, doing things. Technically this is a case of the story moving over to the offspring, but I surely remember her having more to do in the first film. Lang is the highlight for me, one who is abrasive as ever but still engaging enough to see where one could at least see how people would rally behind him. Besides, him playing the exposition of just how he returns is at least interesting when coming from him (and yay, he gets to come back for more, so I can only hope he gets to do more cartoonish things - maybe he'll shoot a space whale and make it dignified). Winslet and Curtis make fairly decent new people to do the schtick of "welcome to the sea, fellow blue-ish people". I admire Weaver taking a role where she has to play a blue teenager - granted it is a decent performance, but hey, I guess it needed to be Weaver when acting with actual teens playing blue teenagers. Of course, Champion is meant to stick out like a sore thumb as the wild child among blue people, but yea, he did start to get on my nerves after time.

By the first hour, the film has established the change from pursuit of "unobtanium" to basically trying to make a new Earth for the humans while the on-screen "Na'vi Family Robinson" makes their trip to the sea (look, I know they are called "Na'vi", but forgive me if I end up saying blue people). At least you get to see the return of Lang as the villain, if only because nobody wants to see a whole trip to the deep blue sea without some sort of weirdo new blue villain. The middle hour is pretty eventful: you get to see Avatar's version of whales with the "tulkun", the spiritual blood brothers that was reminding me to wonder just how familiar it might be to something like Free Willy (1993). So yes, space whales. Take a guess what happens with the space whales when there is one outcast among them. At any rate, don't forget about the weird conflicts between the reef people (i.e. green people) and the blue folks. I'll be honest, I did find it amusingly tiresome to remember that there are three siblings to this Na'vi family alongside two adoptees. When it finally labors itself past the 120-minute mark, now you get to see a battle to save the space whales from having their stuff sucked out for anti-aging serum (yes) and being drawn out by the villain. At least the crab-mecha thing (the time for getting proper names for things is long past) is fun, because god knows the action in the last act is probably the most interesting the film gets beyond showing images in the water. At any rate, by the time you finish this mix of school movies, animal flicks, and possibly The Poseidon Adventure, you probably will be interested in just what the hell James Cameron wants to do in this "family saga", where it will continue to push the elements of where special effects can go to go alongside wondering just how self-serious this story will go. I dug the movie, but any good movie has clear elements that could have gone down with the ship with lesser hands, and this is most evident here. This was a movie about family being everything along with the message that the environment (specifically water) will kick your ass if you try to mess with it...I think. Will there be material present in the further sequels that make this even more of a true epic, or will it be something that you could lightly make fun of it (probably while doing certain substances beforehand) while looking at the pretty images? Time will tell for the third film, set for release in the late 2020s...

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Titanic (1997).

Review #1515: Titanic.

Cast: 
Leonardo DiCaprio (Jack Dawson), Kate Winslet (Rose Dewitt Bukater), Billy Zane (Cal Hockley), Kathy Bates (Molly Brown), Frances Fisher (Ruth Dewitt Bukater), Gloria Stuart (Old Rose), Bill Paxton (Brock Lovett), Bernard Hill (Captain Smith), David Warner (Spicer Lovejoy), Victor Garber (Thomas Andrews), Jonathan Hyde (J. Bruce Ismay), Suzy Amis (Lizzy Calvert), Lewis Abernathy (Lewis Bodine), Nicholas Cascone (Bobby Buell), and Anatoly M. Sagalevitch (Anatoly Milkailavich) Written and Directed by James Cameron (#001 - Terminator 2: Judgement Day, #063 - The Terminator, #388 - Avatar, #574 - Aliens, and #606 - True Lies)

Review:
"People call me a perfectionist, but I'm not. I'm a rightist. I do something until it's right, and then I move on to the next thing."

Having particular interests and a particular way of wanting to do them can prove for a resilient director, and James Cameron certainly has proved one of the more memorably resilient directors in ambition. While growing up in Chippewa, Cameron had an interest in building things and in art, although he later expressed interest in doing 8mm home movies after seeing 2001: A Space Odyssey (1968). He had an interest in building and physics in his brief time in Fullerton College, but he moved on to small-time jobs such as truck driving with writing on the side. However, he decided to get himself into films because of the excitement of seeing Star Wars (1977). The following year, he raised funds to do a short film in Xenogenesis (1978). Over the next few years, he worked on a few films in effects and assistant work (such as Battle Beyond the Stars and Galaxy of Terror) before being hired to direct for the first time with Piranha II: The Spawning (1982). Although it was a flop, his next film brought him into prominence within science fiction entertainment with The Terminator (1984). Cameron has ventured beyond filmmaking in subsequent years, such as sea exploring and documentary filmmaking alongside activist work.

What can one expect from a film that is actually longer than the sinking of the ship the film is named after? Director/writer/co-producer/co-editor Cameron spent a great deal of time in research while pitching it as "Romeo & Juliet on the Titanic" to 20th Century Fox, with Cameron taking numerous diving trips with a miniature remotely operated vessels to view the wreckage of the Titanic. The film was a tremendous financial venture, with 20th Century Fox handling the international rights while Paramount Pictures handled the North America distribution for a total $200 million budget upon release...and you know the rest. What's there to say that isn't already known or stated already by someone else? It certainly handles itself well in spectacle and trappings of the period in detail. Once it gets to the wreck, you can't stop the freight train of chaos. Of course the film also quibbles itself with a mediocre love story that bloats itself in woodenness that will either inspire fluster in its audience or snickers at just being a slightly-better version of The Poseidon Adventure (1972) while somehow not being as rewarding as Cameron's previous works. One can make two billion dollars with a movie and still come out of it feeling like they only got 80 cents on the dollar, I suppose.

There proves to be an interesting mix of acting, trying their best in a period drama that also has to not become lost within effects and occasional stilted moments. DiCaprio certainly has an instinctive everyman quality to him, certainly proving idea in resonating charm out of simple things, whether that means first seeing the ship for the first time or his high society dinner act with others. Winslet proves just as resounding, wrapped with resourceful grace that makes the star-crossed romance come across without too many obstacles. They click well and likely prove enough in interest to make the inevitability all the more bittersweet to see play out in a climax effects ride. Zane proves quite enjoyable as the default adversary of the film, surprisingly enough. He is quite hammy in the right places needed when it comes to arrogance and anti-chemistry with Winslet that chews scenery quite handily, and the only quibble I have is that his fate is told to us rather than being shown, because one does need one more hammy last moments with Zane, honestly. Bates proves ready in small moments when it comes to clear-cut contrast with stuffier companions. Fisher comes and goes with inevitable parental conflict over romance that is decent for those fleeting moments needed. Stuart and Paxton bridge the beginning and end with proper fitting in clear perspectives when it comes to the ship and the story that is weaved from it.

For all the expense spared in making one feel like they really are on the Titanic, there are still little details that inevitably spring up. Was it really so hard to depict a mix of fictional and real-life characters without tarnishing reputation? What is the point of perpetuating the myth and lie that J. Bruce Ismay was a coward? While he had his part in the reduction of lifeboats on the ship (which could have had sixty but had barely a third of that), he most certainly did not force the ship to go faster. Perceptions can be everything, and press coverage of Ismay was extremely negative to the point that subsequent film adaptations (including the famed A Night to Remember (1958), which the film apparently shares a few moments of similarity with in terms of arrangement) included this in their portrayals of him (this can be said in a different light about Captain Smith in regards to how history recorded him and his actions before going down with the ship). One depiction was controversial enough to literally inspire an apology to the relatives of William Murdoch (first officer), who is depicted shooting two people before dying himself (the circumstances of his death are disputed, and his body was never found). The enjoyment comes from the obvious for me: the great and wonderfully re-created ship that makes one really experience this ship and the time that comes from it with finesse - and then of course the splitting of said ship that goes from growing waters to panicky escape attempts. This was a pure technical winner for those involved, with Academy Awards ranging from cinematography to visual effects to costume design to other awards like music (score and song) while Cameron would win three Academy Awards. Perhaps this really is just a film that people just love because they love the emotions it can inspire, particularly in crying. If one really wants to judge movies on how well they make you cry, all power to you, but crying at something isn't exactly my thing, and the idea of crying at this almost seems hysterical. To some, it is a great experience, capable of inspiring tears and quotable moments, while others might find it as pure pablum. I recognize its scope and semi-effective touch as enough to win me over on a casual level, where I may roll my eyes at some of its moments while knowing full well it still ranks as good enough to be worth it.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Heavenly Creatures.

Review #1507: Heavenly Creatures.

Cast:
Melanie Lynskey (Pauline Parker), Kate Winslet (Juliet Hulme), Sarah Peirse (Honora Parker), Diana Kent (Hilda Hulme), Clive Merrison (Dr. Henry Hulme), Simon O'Connor (Herbert Rieper), and Jed Brophy (John) Directed by Peter Jackson (#1486 - Bad Taste)

Review: 
"I was reading the script in the back of the car and I turned to my dad and yelled, "I've GOT to get this!". And he replied, "Then you will." And I thought, "Yep, that's it. I'm bloody well going to." And that was it. I was so determined."
"I always thought I'd be in New Zealand doing theater. Everything I've done is greater than my greatest dreams."

It's easy to do a fascinating film about history when it happens in your back yard, or shall we say in the Fourth World. This was the debut performance for both Lynskey and Winslet, with each having been picked after hundreds of auditions for each role and both having acted from a young age (each appearing in plays from a young age along with Winslet appearing in television). This proved an important development for Jackson, who had primarily done horror-comedy films before this (with Braindead being released two years prior). It was his partner Fran Walsh who brought the idea of doing a film about the murders, interested in the obsessive relationship of Parker and Hulme that ended up in one of the most infamous murders that gripped New Zealand in the 1950s. A large majority of the filming would be done at authentic locations in New Zealand, including Victoria Park where the events of that day of June 22, 1954 occurred. Jackson and Walsh did research on the story through interviews with people who knew about Parker and Hulme (both of whom had since long been living under different names) along with utilizing diary entries that the former had written about the friendship.

Ultimately, what we have here is a strikingly fascinating film, careful in its depiction of its outcast focuses with the right sense of understanding and tension to make a riveting psychological drama. Jackson and Walsh deserve credit for not springing into sensationalism or broad generalization, instead going for a sort of surreal treatment within its mixing of reality and fantasy that makes a sort of haunting growth story. The secret weapon of the film is the effects from WETA Limited, utilized to show the fictional kingdom of Borovnia in their latex plasticine glory for the fantasy sequences among other moments such as a morphing garden. It makes a world one could see perhaps sacrificing for in its mythic imaginative quality. In terms of performances, Lynskey and Winslet obviously prove up to the challenge. Lynskey serves herself with a quiet and sort of unassuming intensity, one that drives us in interest over what she is really thinking and saying in the contrast of her life with her parents compared to the growing world of imagination and other passions with her one true friend, which we can find palpable even while batting an eye at the extent of their fantasy. Winslet fits the other side of the coin with flourish and vulnerability that has a great deal of conviction within a role that would've proved challengingly shaky to get a hold of for a weaker actress but feels like putty for Winslet to make for brilliant obsession. They have an interesting bond with each other that springs along with efficiency in displaying their unusually strong bond that deals within macabre romanticism like sisters, which naturally makes the decision at the end all the more frightening. Peirse and Kent round the contrasting corner in parenting, doing well in showing the difference in their treatment of their offspring that lends plenty of repressed curiosity that makes for good tension that isn't one-dimensional. On the whole, what we have here is a fascinating period drama that builds its dark sensibilities with a good deal of understanding and determination that sticks out from what could have been a pure true crime flick, making a clear portrait of troubled imagination come out quite clear for a winner.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind.

Review #1201: Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind.

Cast: 
Jim Carrey (Joel Barish), Kate Winslet (Clementine Kruczynski), Kirsten Dunst (Mary), Mark Ruffalo (Stan), Elijah Wood (Patrick), Tom Wilkinson (Dr. Mierzwiak), Jane Adams (Carrie), David Cross (Rob), and Deirdre O'Connell (Hollis Mierzwiak) Directed by Michel Gondry (#451 - The Green Hornet)

Review: 
Memories are a funny thing. Whether they are ones that we prefer to reminisce about or ones that we look back on with a tinge of regret, this is a film that likes to play with memory while dealing what it means to live with emotions that can come from a relationship - whether it involves pain or pleasure. Imagine a person in your life that you loved or cared for at one point in time and having them disappear from your memory just like that; the film certainly creates a world where it feels pretty routine (with one line involving someone trying to have the procedure for a third time in a month), where people map out memories of someone, go to sleep and then awaken to the disappearance of the heartache and faded memories left behind. With different hands, one could probably have made a horror film with the concept of erasing someone from your mind (or perhaps a straight-forward romcom), but it is the handiwork of Charlie Kaufman, Michel Gondry and Pierre Bismuth that make such a clever and original story worth spending time with. It plays itself into numerous genres, such as romance, science-fiction, and comedy-drama. It is a fascinating film to watch play out, particularly with its main performances from Carrey and Winslet. It plays with the audience and their expectations without feeling like a cynical (or sappy) cheat, having plenty of emotion alongside a few interesting effects and a bit of improvisation. Carrey, playing against type, does a wonderful job, being quite entertaining to watch in a shy yet capable role that never seems too sullen or annoying to be around. Winslet is quirky, unpredictable, unfiltered, and quite right for her role, having plenty of range and intensity to her performance, whether when interacting with Carrey in memories or beyond; their chemistry is what makes the film work as well as it does, being snappy and interesting without falling prey to cliches or being undeserving of its moments, particularly with its final scene. The rest of the cast is also quite good, with Dunst and Ruffalo being charming in their scenes together (such as when they jump on the bed in the middle of the memory procedure; Wood and Wilkinson are fine to watch, both handling their parts in memory erasure with varying results that make them handy to see. What makes the film stick out is its willingness to play with its structure and unfold the way it wants and have the audience make sure to pay attention and not simply let things pass by. It doesn't present high stakes, but that is because it wants to aim for something engaging in actuality - to paraphrase from a quote from the film, it is looking for its own peace of mind. Films can often inspire debate and discussion over its meaning or intent, and this is an easy one to inspire exploration for. Fifteen years after its release (which resulted as a mild success with audiences and an Academy Award for Best Original Screenplay), Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind is a wildly entertaining ride that proves just right for numerous types of curiosities and tastes, tugging with emotion without going overboard in all the right places to make a winner.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: Flushed Away.

Review #166: Flushed Away.

Cast
Hugh Jackman (Roddy St. James), Kate Winslet (Rita Malone), Ian McKellen (The Toad), Jean Reno (Le Frog), Bill Nighy (Whitey), Andy Serkis (Spike), and Shane Richie (Sid) Directed by David Bowers and Sam Fell.

Review
I began this week with stop motion animation and we end with...computer generated animation. However the animation is meant to look like the traditional clay like figures, which it does. Jackman, Winslet, and McKellen are excellent in their roles (Jackman proving he can do more then just be Wolverine or...Van Helsing). The story is decent, with some good gags that are entertaining enough. This ends Dreamworks Animation Week. Overall, it was a decent week, but how does Dreamworks compare to Pixar, or...Disney? Dreamworks can do good films as I've heard from others, and it can do average to meh as well. But the point is that Dreamworks has good and the meh inside them, and that's all that matters. Thank you for reading this week. This ends Part VII.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.