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.

Manhunter.

Review #1713: Manhunter.

Cast: 

William Petersen (Will Graham), Kim Greist (Molly Graham), Joan Allen (Reba McClane), Brian Cox (Dr. Hannibal Lecktor), Dennis Farina (Jack Crawford), Tom Noonan (Francis Dollarhyde), Stephen Lang (Freddy Lounds), David Seaman (Kevin Graham), Benjamin Hendrickson (Dr. Frederick Chilton), Michael Talbott (Geehan), and Dan Butler (Jimmy Price) Written and Directed by Michael Mann (#1531 - Ali and #1631 - The Last of the Mohicans)

Review: 

It is odd to think that this film has only just reached its 35th anniversary today. The movie is an adaptation of Red Dragon, which was written by Thomas Harris in 1981 as his second novel (Black Sunday (1975) was his first, and that book was turned into a film two years later). He took a good deal of research into the novel that meant classes with the FBI Behavioral Science Unit in Quantico, Virginia. Stephen King, when asked about the book, gave notice to Harris for his "clean eye for prose and his impeccable choice of detail" alongside the great deal of suspense packed into the narrative. Of course, when one thinks of a producer to bring something big into theaters, you probably think of Dino De Laurentiis (and his wife Martha, who both would own the rights to the character of Lecter on film). Since he had experienced failure with Year of the Dragon (1985), this somehow meant that the title of this movie had to be Manhunter (no points as to who came up with adding a K to Lector's name). Of course, we all know what came to follow after the release of the book and the film adaptation. Harris wrote a second book involving Hannibal Lecter with The Silence of the Lambs in 1988 that was turned into a film three years later to near unanimous praise (featuring Anthony Hopkins as Lector over Cox); amusingly enough, the De Laurentiis couple allowed Orion Pictures to produce the film without their involvement, and obviously they were eager to find a way to see a new novel by Harris to adapt. One sequel book/film adaptation later, a second adaptation of Red Dragon followed in 2002 (with the De Laurentiis couple back as producers again, in probably one of the most befuddling distinctions ever in being behind two adaptations of the same book), which was directed by Brett Ratner with Edward Norton as Graham and Hopkins as Lector one more time.

Oddly enough, I am reminded of Mann's other most noted work in the decade with the television show Miami Vice, which he served as executive producer (mostly with the color palate, which had distinct touches in the early years) Granted, Manhunter is generally more consistent, but that detail of style seems apparent when talking about the film when it is paired with the intensity of the grim pursuit for a solid thriller. Undeniably, there is a good amount of folks that will encounter this after seeing the more famous Lector movie, and the differences between the two might surprise folks. It eschews attempts at going for levels of squeamishness that keep the manhunt at the forefront that makes one at least have some sort of shiver at what it takes to try and come back into getting into the the mindset of thinking like a killer with a distinct sense of voyeurism that keeps one on their toes. It makes sense to have Petersen there as your lead if only because one knows he already excelled with stuff like To Live and Die in L.A. (1985), which Mann saw footage of and liked enough to cast Petersen (he also had a small role in Mann's debut film Thief in 1981); as a whole, he proves quite curious, whether that means he is shown talking to home movies in pursuit of the mind or when trying to justify why he does the things he does.  It should be noted that Farina was a police officer for the Chicago Police Department for eighteen years before a chance role as a police consultant for Thief (1981) helped get him into moonlighting for Chicago-based movies and shows; incidentally, he would star in Crime Story (1986-88, which Mann served as executive producer and occasional writer/director) a month after this film premiered in theaters. Farina seems exactly at home here with solid procedural material, wrapped with tough energy that makes one at least wonder why they didn't keep him over Scott Glenn when it came time for the aforementioned next film. Greist has a few moments here and there with Petersen that go over okay, while Allen eventually gets to be paired with Noonan that ends up quite cursory. This was actually one of Lang's earliest roles, and while he may not have much to do besides play a pest, he does alright with generating a smarmy chuckle to what needs to happen. Cox is quite restrained here, but it makes sense for what happens here for a movie adaptation focused on the hunt of a different killer anyway. Hopkins would have more "meat" to chew on a few years later, but Cox sets his own stage nicely enough with a calm ooze. One doesn't need to really see him out of those bars to know that there is something dark lurking within a supposedly pathetic state. Besides, one knows the power that comes in making a fearful beast. He proves the highlight of the film, and he doesn't ever show up until nearly an hour in for a two-hour movie. Honestly, while it may be a bit too glossy for its own good at certain times, one can't say that it is a forgettable experience. It manages to keep you roped in to what is going to happen next with its pursuit with a fairly game cast and workable tension that still proves useful even after 35 years as a solid work from Mann.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Gettysburg (1993).

Review #1242: Gettysburg.

Cast: 
Tom Berenger (Lieutenant General James Longstreet), Jeff Daniels (Colonel Joshua Chamberlain), Martin Sheen (General Robert E. Lee), Sam Elliott (Brigadier General John Buford), Stephen Lang (Major General George Pickett), Maxwell Caulfield (Colonel Strong Vincent), Kevin Conway (Sergeant Buster Kilrain), C. Thomas Howell (Lieutenant Thomas Chamberlain), Richard Jordan (Brigadier General Lewis A. "Lo" Armistead), James Lancaster (Lieutenant Colonel Arthur Fremantle), Richard Anderson (Major General George Meade), Royce D. Applegate (Brigadier General James L. Kemper), John Diehl (Private Joseph Bucklin), Joshua D. Maurer (Colonel James Clay Rice), Patrick Gorman (Major General John Bell Hood), Cooper Huckabee (Henry Thomas Harrison), and Brian Mallon (Major General Winfield Scott Hancock), with narration by W. Morgan Sheppard. Directed by Ronald F. Maxwell.

Review: 
How does one do proper justice to a film such as this? It is a film that runs at 254 minutes (with 17 additional minutes added for the Director's Cut), making it one of the longest films released by an American studio. The original intent was to broadcast this as a miniseries for TNT, after ABC turned down backing the project earlier in the decade. However, it was felt by network namesake and famed media mogul Ted Turner that the rushes coming in were good enough to release in theaters. The film did indeed get shown on TNT the following year, shown on two nights to a viewership of over 20 million; it did not prove to be a major success at the box office, making back only twelve million on a $20 million budget owing to a limited release of less than 300 theaters at its peak distributed by Turner-owned New Line Cinema and being limited to few screenings per day (due to the length, naturally), but it did prove to be a hit on the video market, with its attention to authenticity ensuring that it would have a place with any history or Civil War buff. This is a film that had been sitting on my shelf for over a decade, and I had wondered exactly how to approach this over the years (alongside the question of exactly how many times my father must have put the film on to watch, with its disc having to be flipped over to experience both parts), but I find that at long last it needs to have its day in the spotlight. One must admire the courage to try and make a film like this, adapted from the 1975 historical novel The Killer Angels by Michael Shaara (awarded the Pulitzer Prize for Fiction for his novel) with adaptation by director/screenwriter Maxwell that used many writings from the book; it is a sprawling spectacle that was filmed on location in Pennsylvania, including scenes recreated on the actual battlefield (allowed by the National Park Service), with plenty of Civil War reenactors to go around to contribute the scale that this movie wishes to show at times through the three-day battle.

What is a film about a battle if not one with a detailed ensemble cast such as this, headlined by Berenger, Daniels, and Sheen most terrifically. Berenger (the first in a line of actors with some sort of big facial hair) shines amiably, having plenty of moments to give credence to such a key role with careful tenacity, which helps carry the first half and chunks of the second well. Daniels plays his side of the coin quite well for himself, showing plenty of humanity and courage that also crucially carries well for the first half. Sheen is just as efficient, blending right in with such a key figure that makes his appearance count without struggle, thoughtful and determined as per the expectation. The rest of the cast make certain they stick out whenever they show on screen, whether it is from the beginning or midway in, acting to the standard one could expect in filling into men long gone but infused into the legend of Gettysburg. People such as Elliott, Conway, Howell, and Huckabee make it count for that first half (the first two hours at least), while others such as Lang, Jordan, and Lancaster accompany what they can in the latter half. It can be easy to see why a project like this was made in the first place, and it does become apparent that this did indeed belong on a movie screen, where the full weight of battle and drama can come out for all to see again and again through the hours.

I will admit that the first half does tend to run a bit better than its second, building its time and characters with a bit more handling than the second half, although the film never has a moment when it all crashes down or feels too out of depth. It is patience and appreciation that carries the tide rather than boredom or confusion. It yearns to cover ground on both sides of the conflict, not devolving itself into one easy corner - it may be about a battle, but it sure makes time to show besides the battle, of these men who have fought other men of their country, a war of freedom and rebellion (or whatever view one has historically) that raged for four years. Despite the war persisting on for two more years after Gettysburg, this proved to be a key fight, and the film makes sure to never lose focus on earning its moments, and the jewel is the execution of the grand battles and accompanying music from Randy Edelman. It isn't a perfect films by any means, and it certainly isn't the easiest one to stick through, but the curious ones at heart who love their history or ones deeply invested in long sweeping spectacles will (and have) find much to appreciate and care for here. Craftsmanship and hard driving work from all involved rule the day here, showing great care and authenticity for such an important event with balance and honor.

Happy Independence Day, folks. I sure hope you enjoyed this unique double-header and I hope you enjoy the 4th and all that comes with it - there are plenty of things to try and cover this month, and a little bit of patriotism helps along the way in getting there. I'll be happy to see where the Independence Day Feature takes me for next year and beyond.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

Tombstone.

Review #1177: Tombstone.

Cast: 
Kurt Russell (Wyatt Earp), Val Kilmer (Doc Holliday), Sam Elliott (Virgil Earp), Bill Paxton (Morgan Earp), Powers Boothe ("Curly Bill" Brocius), Michael Biehn (Johnny Ringo), Charlton Heston (Henry Hooker), Jason Priestley (Billy Breakenridge), Jon Tenney (Sheriff Johnny Behan), Stephen Lang (Ike Clanton), Thomas Haden Church (Billy Clanton), Dana Delany (Josephine Marcus), and Paula Malcomson (Allie Earp), with narration by Robert Mitchum. Directed by George P. Cosmatos (#818 - Rambo: First Blood Part II)

Review: 
On October 26, 1881, a shooutout occurred between lawmen and outlaws near the O.K. Corral in Tombstone, Arizona, resulting in three deaths. It later became known as one of the most famous shooutouts of the Wild West, in part due to Stuart Lake's biography Wyatt Earp: Frontier Marshal, written in 1931 that told the tale of one of the participants. Although it is now known as largely fictional by researchers, it served the basis for films such as My Darling Clementine (1946) while helping to elevate Earp into a mythic icon. In any case, Kevin Jarre was slated to write and direct this film to tell the tale of the gunfight alongside the people involved in the shootout. However, a month into production he was fired from the directing chair due to falling behind in the shooting schedule. Cosmatos was hired to replace him, while scriptdoctor John Fasano helped in trimming the story to focus more on the Wyatt-Doc dynamic. It may interest you to know that six months after the release of the film came Wyatt Earp (1994), which starred Kevin Costner that wasn't as successful. The best thing that can be said about this movie is that it has plenty of entertainment value for a Western, having a good balance of action and story to make a solid experience. The ensemble cast is up to the task of making these characters come alive without feeling generic or getting lost in the shuffle. The music from Bruce Broughton (composer of a film previously covered in Silverado) also stands to the task of swift adventure. Russell shines fairly well, being quite capable at giving his role a fair sense of depth that makes him feel more than just a lawman, particularly when conversing with his on-screen brothers (Elliot and Paxton, who are efficient) or with Kilmer. I particularly like the sequence when he deals with an unruly gambler (played by Billy Bob Thornton) without even having to shoot a gun. Kilmer (complete with a Southern drawl) is quite excellent as well, being quite watchable with plenty of charm to go around. Boothe shines well as one of the adversaries the movie presents, but it is Biehn who also proves efficient in making a worthy opponent for the final showdown. The supporting cast is fine, although the movie's key strength relies more on Earp in action than when he is sharing time with either of the women in his life. The film works well before and after the Corral gunfight, keeping interest through its 130 minute runtime with minimal moments of tedium. The film seems to have plenty of craftsmanship and effort done to make something that doesn't feel like a manufactured tale made for a cheap thrill, having a finely told story with plenty of interesting things to go around. It isn't a great Western classic, but it is a well made and well done movie that can work for anyone looking for an old legend put to film.

Happy New Year folks. Hoping 2019 is just as productive as 2018 was.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Hostiles.

Review #1048: Hostiles.

Cast: 
Christian Bale (Captain Joseph J. Blocker), Rosamund Pike (Rosalie Quaid), Wes Studi (Yellow Hawk), Ben Foster (Sergeant Charles Wills), Stephen Lang (Colonel Abraham Biggs), Rory Cochrane (1st Sergeant Thomas Metz), Jesse Plemons (Lieutenant Rudy Kidder), Timothée Chalamet (Private Philippe DeJardin), Jonathan Majors (Corporal Henry Woodson), Adam Beach (Black Hawk), and Q'orianka Kilcher (Elk Woman) Directed by Scott Cooper.

Review: 
Admittedly, it is interesting watch a Western like this in our day and age, one that is brutal but fair in its approach that ultimately feels like a solid winner. The film (which premiered at the Telluride Film Festival in September of last year before going into limited release in December and general release on January 26th) is based off an manuscript from the late screenwriter Donald E. Stewart, who had written for numerous films such as Missing (1982) and The Hunt for Red October (1990 - #080), among others. Undeniably, the most appealing aspect of the film is Bale, who delivers a tremendous performance. There is just something about the way that he commands the movie and shows numerous layers within his character that makes for a hauntingly good role. That's not to say that the other actors don't go a great job, with Pike and Studi also standing out in their own ways. Pike manages to interact with the harrowing world that she is thrust into with the right sense of emotion and timing. Studi also provides a fine performance, managing to complement Bale and his character with his own actions that he conveys in a convincing manner. Notably, a good part of the film features the speaking of dialogue through the Cheyenne language, which comes off as satisfactory to the film's benefit. The other actors do their parts well enough, particularly Cochrane, who plays the weary solider in the film rather convincingly. Another highlight of the movie is its look, with cinematographer Masanobu Takayanagi doing a fine job in capturing the locations utilized in the movie that give a crisp but useful feel. This is a redemption story through and through, and it manages to capture a feel of the Old West without feeling too hollow. The narrative isn't always the most consistent, but the parts that are manage to ring true enough, with the 133 minute run-time being forgivable. I'd recommend it, particularly if you are a fan of the genre and want something that is harsh but also arguably beautiful as well.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Don't Breathe.

Review #839: Don't Breathe.

Cast
Jane Levy (Rocky), Stephen Lang (The Blind Man), Dylan Minnette (Alex), Daniel Zovatto (Money), Jane Graves (Cindy Roberts), and Emma Bercovici (Diddy) Directed by Fede Alvarez.

Review
The best kind of horror movies either keep a good deal of tension going at a consistent pace or manage to have a fairly compelling cast. With this movie, it manages to do both pretty well, with a small cast of characters and an intense atmosphere that thankfully isn't filled with too many jump scares. It takes a basic home invasion premise and makes it feel fresh (in part due to a riveting and disturbing climax), while also not overstaying its welcome at 88 minutes. Levy does a pretty good job, in part because she manages to react with enough terror that doesn't get too grating. Lang is the key highlight, playing this role with a great deal of intensity, and while he doesn't speak much he still manages to have a great presence, especially with those eyes. It's not a clear cut kind of horror movie in terms of the actions of the characters, but it's interesting to see how they cross with each other, and while one could argue that the climax might have a plot hole or two, the film manages to be entertaining enough that I let it slide. It didn't hit me until about midway through the level of tension established by simple sounds made in the house (film title non withstanding), with one scene in near darkness being pretty chilling. Thankfully this was a quiet kind of experience at the theater, where the scares weren't obvious enough for the audience to point out nor get all screamy about it. This is a quick affair that will probably stick with me (and maybe you) for a while.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: Avatar (2009).

Review #388: Avatar.

Cast
Sam Worthington (Jake Sully), Zoe Saldaña (Neytiri), Stephen Lang (Miles Quaritch), Sigourney Weaver (Dr. Grace Augustine), Michelle Rodriguez (Trudy Chacón), Giovanni Ribisi (Parker Selfridge), Joel David Moore (Norm Spellman), and Dileep Rao (Max Patel) Directed by James Cameron (#001 - Terminator 2: Judgement Day, #063 - The Terminator)

Review
When this film was about to come out, I had never heard so much hype before. And keep in mind, it has been four years since the film was released, and I barely just got to reviewing this. So, after all this hype, does it live up to in a satisfactory way? Sort of. It does have good effects at points, which do work to its advantage, but effects aren't everything. The characters...aren't are as good as the effects. The flaw I think is evident in this film is the way the characters are portrayed, which is easily summed up like this: "The hero with a "unknown" secret" to "unlikable brute". There are of course scientists, but the film somewhat follows the Scientist Rule, which means that if you have a scientist in your film, he/she will either be ignored by a important character which proves to be important. While the characters may not have that much depth to them, the actors at least are alright. Maybe it's just me, but my favorite actress in this film is Sigourney Weaver, doing another good job in a film reviewed here. Someone once described this film as "Dances with Smurfs", and after seeing this, I can't argue against that. The film has spectacle, but this film sometimes hammers its message too much, the character sometimes feel a bit generic. Does it have anything good? Sure, but this is not a great film by any means. It's not Star Wars (1977), more of a Star Wars Episode III: Revenge of the Sith.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.