Avatar

I've been wrestling with Avatar for quite some time. Long before the movie was released, before a trailer had been seen, I had heard Avatar would change things, perhaps the movie industry as a whole. Then the trailers were released, and then the movie itself, as well as reviews and award shows nominations and wins. Suffice it to say, the hype on this behemoth of a movie was big. Like really big. And, in order to manage my expectations, I tried to ignore the hype, to keep a rational mind. So how did it shape up to the hype? To my expectations? Well that's rather complicated.

I have a feeling that this review may read more like a criticism of Avatar than a praising of it. But the grading Avatar get will likely not reflect what is said here. More on all that later. First and foremost, Avatar is nothing more than a big budget, popcorn sci-fi flick. In terms of story, that is exactly what James Cameron's latest is. And it's a big film, akin to a Michael Bay movie, only better shot, acted, and received. But both those men love big movies. This is not a criticism, only a reminder that something we enjoy isn't always something that is truly great. On the page, Avatar is nothing remarkable. It is a fun science fiction story. But when you examine the film from a technical level, that's really where it shines.

The computer graphics and the application of 3D is amazing. There is so much detail, the characters and environments of the Pandora world (where the film is set), is at times perfect, and at others, really, really good. And let me say right up front that 3D movies aren't really my thing. They seem too gimmicky, and too much focus is spent on this aspect, rather than telling a decent story. Avatar tries to blend these two aspects with a little more care than your average animation or horror movie might. The universe of the film is designed for 3D, and is not meant to showoff an effect every couple of scenes. The Na'vi, which are the native species of Pandora, become more life like when you see them emerge from the screen, as if you existed in their world. The trees and bushes and other assorted vegetation almost pull you in deeper, gently blowing into and out of the screen. Cameron knew what he was doing here.

But then we get to the story. Now, I know it sounds like I'm about to rip on the screenplay, or even the acting, but that's not what I'm here to do. If this were any other filmmaker's movie, and done in a more traditional, 2D style, Avatar may get praise for being a fun, entertaining waste of a couple hours. But that is a fair label, because it is exactly that. I had fun watching Avatar, from the very beginning to the very end. There are moments of intense action, when you may find yourself not breathing, or laughing at a joke, or all sorts of other emotional reactions you have when watching a good film. But the only reason these emotions are enhanced is because of the 3D. Sure, there is a lot of good world building, and some really inventive creatures and alien dialect to be found, but these alone do not a good movie make. I appreciate the story I was told in Avatar, but do not for one moment believe it will change my life, nor do I think it was the most original work of the year.

And a brief note on the acting. Sam Worthington does a terrific job, and I'd pat myself on the back for saying he will likely be the next great star, if not for so many people already having said it first. The rest of the actors each performed at various levels under the heading of "good," but I wasn't blown away by anybody else. It just had to be said.

At the end of the day, Avatar is a good watch, and something that should be seen in 3D. But I'm not yet sold on the need for 3D in movies, or at least not as a standard. Every once and awhile maybe, but not every movie needs it, and even a few really don't. Cameron's movie recently won a Golden Globe for Best Picture, an award I don't think it deserved. It's made a ton of money, changed the nature of 3D films, but that's about it. There are better movies and there are worse. Let's just not get too out of hand. If Avatar wins the Academy Award for Best Picture, I don't know if I'll be able to control myself. But I guess we'll have to wait and see how history views Avatar.

Genre - Science Fiction (3.25)

Screenplay (3)

Acting (3)

Production (4)

Directing (3)

Sherlock Holmes

This is an example of how to appropriately reboot a franchise. Or kick start one. Sherlock Holmes is definitely presenting itself as the first entry into a franchise, but movies featuring the character of Sherlock Holmes in the past haven't really been intended as franchises, or at least never took off. But that's likely due to Robert Downey Jr. not being available. I mean, the man makes this movie. He made Iron Man awesome, so why not the same with one of the most well-known, albeit fictional, detectives in the world?

I'll start by saying how tentative I was about seeing this film at all. I've only ever read The Hound of the Baskervilles, which I thoroughly enjoyed, but that is the extent of my immediate Holmes knowledge. The rest comes from reading about the great detective, and what I've gleaned from the television series House. Having known of this connection prior to watching Sherlock Holmes, it becomes readily apparent how much the character House was modeled after Holmes. The crass, intellectual, and deductive personalities are traits both characters share (and an addiction to drugs, which the movie mostly sidesteps). But nothing listed above was reason for how cautious I was approaching Sherlock Holmes.

When I discovered Guy Ritchie was going to direct, I worried that he would turn Holmes into just another one of his gangster flicks he is most well-known for making. And early previews only seemed to make this all the more likely, featuring almost nothing but fighting, explosions, and wild, intense action; all of which is fair, figuring the Holmes character was known to be a master of fist-fighting and martial arts. There was nothing of the detective using his brilliance, or even what the mystery at the heart of the story would be. But I was wrong here. Ritchie surprised me, giving Holmes the dark universe he belongs to, but allowing him to be first a thinker, and a fighter second. And, lets be honest, there were some pretty incredible action scenes in the film, so I'm glad someone like Ritchie was able to capture it well.

But, aside from some pretty excellent casting, I think credit is due to the writing team. Michael Robert Johnson, Anthony Peckham, and Simon Kinberg all did a terrific job writing the Holmes character. The screenplay isn't perfect, and probably could have used a little cleaning, but the mystery twists and turns, allowing Holmes to uncover the truth in his usual deductive and abrasive way. Giving Downey Jr. the role was about as smart a decision one could make, because it fits him so perfectly. He does an amazing job playing pretentious, self-centered characters like Sherlock Holmes and Tony Stark. Perhaps the sequel will give Holmes the chance to let loose and to face off against his archenemy Professor Moriarty in a battle of wits Vizzini would most certainly be jealous of.

Genre - Action (3.5)

Screenplay (3)
Acting (4)
Production (4)
Directing (3)