Newsburglar

• Dec 30, 2009 Mike Beacom

  Hrmmm, didn’t like Avatar huh? That’s too bad. I was all set to dislike it (the contrarian that I am) and was well on my way at the 1:00hr mark. But the last 1:30 really redeemed the movie for me. At first I was bothered by the painfully cliched story line of a man who is sent in to destroy something, but in the process falls in love with it, but I decided that while cliched, it’s still a pretty good story. I was really impressed with the voice acting of the female lead, Zoe Sal-Uhura-dana?

  I also was in pain watching transformers 1, but thought the sequel was a bit better. Still just grist for the summer blockbuster mill. Which is EXACTLY what Star Trek was. As a summer blockbuster throwaway, it was very enjoyable. As an entry in the mainline Star Trek franchise, it was embarrassing rubbish. JJ Abrams has single handedly destroyed 4 decades of sci fi artistry with his all singing, all dancing monstrosity.

  District 9 started slow but ended as thumbs up. I really liked the quirkiness of the main character but I had some suspension of disbelief issues I had a hard time getting over.

  I really want to see The Hangover and Up, but just haven’t had the chance yet. Also really looking forward to Sherlock Holmes as I’m a big nerd there too. Having read the entire Sherlock Holmes collection, I’m sure I’ll be disappointed on that level, but I’m just hoping for a fun movie. I’m nervous with Guy Ritchie at the helm.

  The one I’m most looking forward too right now is Clash of the Titans. I love Greek/Roman mythology and I loved the horrible B grade 80s flick with Harry Hamlin. The trailer screams 300/Frank Miller so whats not to love?

• Dec 30, 2009 Brian Karpuk

  Yeah, I’m being a contrarian. Kinda. Like you I suppose I had heard enough about the movie to have one eye raised going into it. I overcame my suspicians for the first hour or two but after a while the cliched story line got to me. Its not that I was begging to leave, although I kinda was.

  It was just so darned predictable. Hey, here’s a random helicopter pilot. I betcha she’s only there because they gotta move the control gear somewhere because all the evil humans have to do is unplug our equipment and the entire plot of the movie will be ruined.

  As to Sherlock Holmes, as I was walking out, I heard a father tell his son: “That was not the real Sherlock Holmes.” Clearly Guy Ritchie has, uh, changed a few things. And I like Guy Ritchie movies. Snatch is probably in my top five all-time. Not really interested in Sherlock though.

• Dec 30, 2009 Mike Beacom

  Ok, so you saw Sherlock Holmes? As for Guy Ritchie, I liked Snatch too (and to a lesser degree, Lock Stock..), but the guy is a consummate writer/director. Not the kind of guy you want mucking around with a classic franchise. Writer/directors tend to think of their work as strictly their own from start to finish, to do with as they see fit, and that’s incredibly risky when you’re dealing with something as near perfection as Sherlock Holmes (same thing goes for JJ and Star Trek). They often lack the requisite “respect for the subject matter”. For these types of projects, one needs to go with a visionary director, one who is successful at translating existing material to a new or more technological medium, rather than one who excels at actual creation.

  Also with regard to Avatar, I found the anti-imperialism slant a bit overwrought. But in general, I enjoyed the simplicity of the characters. Their motivations, while one dimensional, were fun to watch as caricatures, and I thought worked well within the framework of the fiction (this is story a 5 year old could easily understand). Yes, it could have used a few more shades of gray for the mature audience (amongst all the pinks, purples, and fern gully greens) but sometimes a black and white story is all that’s necessary. Particularly when you’re making a technological showpiece, which brings us back to your comment about making a good movie with the admittedly impressive technology.

  So, question. Did you see Avatar in 3D? I did not, but I probably will.

• Dec 31, 2009 Brian Karpuk

  No, I did not see Sherlock Holmes. I was going to the bathroom after another movie and the father was explaining to his son that what he had just seen was not the real Sherlock Holmes. Not sure if the proper word is aghast or exasperrated, but he just kept spitting out “that’s not Sherklock Holmes.” I agree with your other points about Guy Ritchie.

  Not sure what to say about the Star Trek stuff. I suspect I’ve seen 55% of the original Star Trek stuff, 40% of TNG, 25% of Voyager, and little of the rest. What I saw, in my mind, did not show a disrespect for the subject matter or clearly contradict years of story. But I’m not a Trekky. I’m just someone who has seen a fair amount of the shows and understands the universe without much need for back story. In that light, I found it to be better than anything that had come before it (not including the episode where Abe Lincoln fights Genghis Khan).

  With respect to Avatar, I’m not sure it was so much the anti-imperialism slant which got to me. To some extent, yes, that was the issue. But I think I got over it part way through the movie. Like I said, I actually enjoyed the first two hours or so. More so, I think the problem was the “evil” human, “evil” military, “evil” capitalism that got to me. To whatever extent, I can understand a storyline that involves imperialism. What gets me is the storyline that there is something so base in human nature that, without explanation, without back story, 95% of one group of humans would utterly annihilate the Natives. That to me is a gross exagerration of the progress that we have made and which continues today.

  I really think that the movie lost me with the destruction of the large tree without negotiation. I realize that maybe I’m creating too fine a distinction between the anti-imperialism and evil. I’m not sure where you could have gone with the story if you tried to separate one from the other. Maybe I need the Evil Military Guy and the Evil Capitalist to be one person, so that there was at least some apparent motivation for the plot.

  Yes, I did see it in 3-D. I’ve now seen both UP and Avatar in 3-D. Its definitely the wave of the future. Some of it is definitely kitschy. Lots of superfluous snowflakes or whatever it was to give the illusion of depth to slow scenes. But a lot of cool stuff as well. Nothing that explicitly sticks out in my mind however. For the two movies that I’ve seen in 3-D, the best use of 3-D has been in the previews for other movies. Toy Story and Shrek 4 looked amazing. I’m sure they won’t turn out like that. I think previews particularly lend themselves to short bits of 3-D. I think it might work better for slow scenes than fast moving ones.

  But yeah, 3-D is awesome and is possibly the only reason (other than my girlfriend dragging me) why I would go see something in the theatre nowadays.

• Jan 5, 2010 Gus

  Happy New Year! We had a busy season around the new year. Now I’m back to discuss this awesome topic. I only have a few moments to say Hi and tell you I saw Invictus and Avatar and thought they were both amazing. However, I still feel District 9 was the best movie of the year. I will give you my reasons later. I am so excited to discuss this topic because I have already debated this with film school buffs as well as a political discussion. Have a good day. Gotta go.

Leave a Comment