It's cliched. It has bad dialogue. It pushes a preachy environmental message. It has a storyline that has been done before.
And it's awesome.
Seriously, think about it. The box office phenomenon is riddled with flaws that would cause lesser films to stumble. The biggest issue of complaint is the storyline: it's Dances With Wolves meets Fern Gully meets Star Wars. But this and other issues did nothing to slow the crowds from packing theatres last winter. I was in one of those crowds.
Avatar has done so remarkably well and met with such wonderful success that it's being re-released in August, boasting a full 8-minutes of never-before-seen-footage. (To be honest, that doesn't sound like much to me. I remember the Lord of the Rings extended edition DVDs having between 30 and 45-minutes of new footage. But I degress.)
And in spite of all its flaws and weak spots, I can tell you one thing: I will be going back to the theatres to watch Avatar again. Yes, I am a weak-minded film buff.
This has me wondering: what is it about Avatar that makes it such a huge success on so many levels? What is it about this movie that will keep the crowds (and myself) coming back for more? Just for curiosity and entertainment's sake, I've come up with a list of reasons.
1. Visually alone, it appeals to almost everyone.
The imagery of Pandora, the stunning visual effects, and the high-adrenaline action of this movie is enough to keep the masses entertained. Casual movie-goers with no deeper interest don't have to look very far. Avatar is not hard to follow, and there's never a moment when the screen is dull. There is always something interesting and/or beautiful to stare at.
2. It's just plain epic.
Something about an epic story has an affect on people. When you think about it, some of the best films (and novels) ever made are those with truly epic plots. An epic plot or backdrop will draw us in and give us that feeling of awe. Avatar does that. It gives us a whole new environment, a culture of people (which, granted, is not the most original culture ever made up for a movie, but still), and a storyline that involves one man saving the day. If not done properly, an attempted epic can fall flat. But Avatar somehow manages to deliver, and no one can accuse it of falling flat!
3. The Visual Effects.
'Nuff said. CGI has come a long way in the past ten years (heck, the past five years!), but we've never seen anything quite like this. Are there moments where the visual effects could be better? Absolutely. Do those moments ruin the rest of the film? Absolutely not. The CGI environments are seamless... there are times you could swear that the forest is real, or the mountains really were a filming location. While there are more slips with the Na'vi, they still boast a benchmark in CGI. Computer-animated beings have never been quite right, be it in movement or build or facial expression. This is the closest to life-like we have ever come. The methods of motion-capture managed to get the physical movements almost perfect. Skin, clothing, hair -- everything is more life-like than ever before. But there is still something about the Na'vi that is just not quite there. I can't put my finger on it (and that shows just how brilliant the CGI is), but personally I think it's in the eyes. The Na'vi eyes were too large and cartoonish to look realistic. But that's just my opinion. The simple point is, the CGI in Avatar is leaps and bounds ahead of anything we've seen before.
4. The glory of 3D.
I'm not a fan of 3D, myself. Since Avatar's success, it's become a gimmick. Movies are automatically converted into 3D just to bring in more money, when the movies themselves don't really beg for 3D viewing. But the 3D of Avatar really is amazing. In a way, it's amazing in its subtlety. There aren't very many "obvious moments", where you can tell that the filmmakers just threw in a certain "jump out" shot for the sake of it looking cool in 3D. In Avatar, it's the little things that add up. It's the water droplets in the cryo-chamber. It's the leaves falling from Hometree before its collapse. It's the jungle bugs flying around your head. (And there were several times that I almost swatted at insects, thinking there really was a fly in the theatre.) These are the little things that add up. Added depth-perception definately adds an element of awe to scenes like the climb to the dragon nests, and the subsequent dragon flights.
5. For filmmaking geeks, the making of this movie is amazing.
There are many film buffs, but not many people are truly interested in the process behind filmmaking. But the story of how Avatar came to be really is incredible. It's a movie ten years in the making. It's the movie that James Cameron wanted to make a decade ago, but decided to wait for the CGI to catch up to the idea. Even when the technology became good enough to proceed, the people behind Avatar pioneered a new realm of moviemaking. Because they had to. If Avatar was going to be made, the filmmakers had to break new ground. And they did. Avatar has set a benchmark that might stand for a long time. To people interested in the process of filmmaking, that alone is an amazing thing.
6. Basic escapism.
A good movie takes you places. It takes you somewhere you've never been before, shows you places you've never seen, and involves you in the struggles going on there. Avatar does that, and it does it amazingly. (Have I overused the term "amazing" yet?) This relates back to the "epic" point. We get involved in this place and these people, and it gives us a chance to forget about our own daily lives for a few hours. This escapism is so strong with Avatar that it has actually spawned "Pandora Syndrome" (I *think* that's the term they're using, but I might be remembering incorrectly): people actually becoming depressed by the fact that Pandora doesn't really exist. This definitely calls into question the people's mental stability before seeing Avatar, and I think there's other problems there besides Pandora's fictionality. But still, the fact remains that watching a movie as expansive as Avatar is a good way to escape into the world of the film.
7. A wide cast of characters. (More of a subpoint than a real point, but still.)
The characters may not be the strongest point of the film, and they're not the reason why this film is great, but they are important. There's such a wide variety of supporting characters, and all (or at least most) of them get their chance to shine. Again, this could probably be combined with the "epic" point. Essentially, there's a character for everyone to root for. Some of them come across as one-dimensional (no pun intended), like Parker Selfridge, the whiny administrator of RDA. Interestingly enough though, a read of the script will show that they had a little more character development planned out even for him. At any rate, such a wide range of characters does, in a way, give us a wider range of characters to root for.
There you have it. I don't think any single one of these reasons is THE reason why Avatar has been such a major hit, but I do think each of these points has something to do with the cause of this movie's success. All of these things combine to make Avatar what it is.
Avatar has been a massive success. Anyone will tell you that a re-release is simply an attempt to make more money... as if it really needs more money. But still, even knowing that, I can say one thing for sure: I will be seeing it again. Which kinda irritates me, because I *know* this is just a way to make more money, and I *know* it's only 8 more minutes of footage, and I *know* that I shouldn't be spending another $8.00 on a 3D movie ticket...
But I'm going anyway.
Thursday, July 29, 2010
Wednesday, July 28, 2010
Clash of the Titans: If It's Not Broke... Break It
Before I even begin to review Clash of the Titans, I need to make a few things clear. First off, I've never seen the original Clash of the Titans. Secondly, I'm not very familiar with Greek mythology. Greek mythology isn't really my cup of tea; but if they can shape it into good movie-material, I'm game to at least check it out. Just keep these two things in mind, in case I make any mistakes regarding these.
I was tempted to go see Clash of the Titans when it was in theaters. But I somehow managed to be insanely busy and short on cash, and never got around to it. So naturally, I decided to rent it upon its DVD release yesterday.
This movie is bad in a lot of ways. Everything from the character-development to the pacing to the music was just wrong. There's no arguing that. Granted, this movie was meant to be a summer popcorn flick and nothing more. But I have a soft spot for summer popcorn flicks, and this movie is even disappointing in that category.
But there's something interesting about how and why this movie is so "off". If I hadn't done some previous reading about this movie's production, I might not be able to pinpoint just what this "off" factor was. But thanks to numerous articles, I can pretty safely say exactly what it was that threw this movie off-course.
This movie is not the movie that was supposed to be made. The original script, while mostly the same in story, consisted of much different characters. The biggest difference is in Zeus. Originally, Zeus was going to be a much more nefarious, cold-hearted character. There was no concern for Perseus, no "father-son" type of thing.
Secondly, Perseus was not to fall in love with his "guardian angel" character, Io; he was to fall in love with Andromeda. To what little knowledge I have on this, this is how the original movie and mythological tale went.
Another difference is in the involvement of the other gods. Apollo and Athena were to be the "good guys" of the gods, and they were the ones to help out Perseus instead of Zeus.
It is not uncommon for film scripts to go through a wide variety of revisions before filming, but this case is different. Why? Because this script was changed DURING filming! Some sources claim that the movie was almost done filming when these changes were thrown in. While I've not seen all the deleted scenes on the DVD (thanks, Blockbuster "Rental Copy"!), I've heard that these consist of many of the original scenes, before the massive revisions.
When you take all this into consideration, I think it becomes a lot more clear as to why this movie is "off". It comes across this way, because even the filmmakers didn't really know what they were doing. They started filming one movie, then decided to make it a different film altogether. The odd character development and awkward pacing can probably be explained mostly by this one fact. Characters can't be properly developed when they are completely revamped at the end of the shoot. And pacing is going to be wierd when you decide to re-shoot half of your movie.
Focus on Zeus for a moment. He could have been a very interesting character and a highlight of the movie (he was played by Liam Neeson, for crying out loud!). But a character like that can't be properly developed when the filmmakers can't decide whether to make him a villain or a hero. If you're going to change it up and make him a caring father-figure who wants a relationship with his son, at least have the decency to flesh it out with some decent character development. As it is, Zeus just kinda goes from one extreme to another, without any explanation as to why.
I've spent enough time complaining about this movie, but I do have some positives to point out. For one, the visual effects were very well-done (with the exception of Medusa... that was kinda iffy). The Kraken was awesome. The build-up to the Kraken's appearance was well-executed, and I wasn't disappointed. Props to the VFX team!
I also have to commend whoever was in charge of casting, because I feel like they made two of the best casting moves ever: Liam Neeson as Zeus and Ralph Fiennes as Hades. From a casting perspective, those two choices just exude pure awesomeness! If anyone can play the king of the gods, it's Liam Neeson. And let's face it, Ralph Fiennes just has a way with villains. But to take it a level further, these two actors even look like they could be brothers!
It's just a shame that their talent was wasted on this movie. Especially with Liam Neeson, as his character was one of the most affected by the massive script overhaul. He can play a good villain, and he can play a good father-figure. But changing the game mid-point with no explanation just doesn't work. And that's not Mr. Neeson's fault: it's the filmmaker's.
I'll end my review with that. Ultimately, there's a lesson to be learned from this, and it's a pretty clear, blunt message. Don't overhault your script when shooting is almost done. And if you absolutely must make such huge changes, at least be prepared to compensate for these changes throughout the rest of the movie with the necessary explanations, development, etc.
Just to add a little disclaimer, I don't mean to offend anyone who liked this movie. Cheers to you, and I'm glad you had a good time!
God bless, and I'm off!
I was tempted to go see Clash of the Titans when it was in theaters. But I somehow managed to be insanely busy and short on cash, and never got around to it. So naturally, I decided to rent it upon its DVD release yesterday.
This movie is bad in a lot of ways. Everything from the character-development to the pacing to the music was just wrong. There's no arguing that. Granted, this movie was meant to be a summer popcorn flick and nothing more. But I have a soft spot for summer popcorn flicks, and this movie is even disappointing in that category.
But there's something interesting about how and why this movie is so "off". If I hadn't done some previous reading about this movie's production, I might not be able to pinpoint just what this "off" factor was. But thanks to numerous articles, I can pretty safely say exactly what it was that threw this movie off-course.
This movie is not the movie that was supposed to be made. The original script, while mostly the same in story, consisted of much different characters. The biggest difference is in Zeus. Originally, Zeus was going to be a much more nefarious, cold-hearted character. There was no concern for Perseus, no "father-son" type of thing.
Secondly, Perseus was not to fall in love with his "guardian angel" character, Io; he was to fall in love with Andromeda. To what little knowledge I have on this, this is how the original movie and mythological tale went.
Another difference is in the involvement of the other gods. Apollo and Athena were to be the "good guys" of the gods, and they were the ones to help out Perseus instead of Zeus.
It is not uncommon for film scripts to go through a wide variety of revisions before filming, but this case is different. Why? Because this script was changed DURING filming! Some sources claim that the movie was almost done filming when these changes were thrown in. While I've not seen all the deleted scenes on the DVD (thanks, Blockbuster "Rental Copy"!), I've heard that these consist of many of the original scenes, before the massive revisions.
When you take all this into consideration, I think it becomes a lot more clear as to why this movie is "off". It comes across this way, because even the filmmakers didn't really know what they were doing. They started filming one movie, then decided to make it a different film altogether. The odd character development and awkward pacing can probably be explained mostly by this one fact. Characters can't be properly developed when they are completely revamped at the end of the shoot. And pacing is going to be wierd when you decide to re-shoot half of your movie.
Focus on Zeus for a moment. He could have been a very interesting character and a highlight of the movie (he was played by Liam Neeson, for crying out loud!). But a character like that can't be properly developed when the filmmakers can't decide whether to make him a villain or a hero. If you're going to change it up and make him a caring father-figure who wants a relationship with his son, at least have the decency to flesh it out with some decent character development. As it is, Zeus just kinda goes from one extreme to another, without any explanation as to why.
I've spent enough time complaining about this movie, but I do have some positives to point out. For one, the visual effects were very well-done (with the exception of Medusa... that was kinda iffy). The Kraken was awesome. The build-up to the Kraken's appearance was well-executed, and I wasn't disappointed. Props to the VFX team!
I also have to commend whoever was in charge of casting, because I feel like they made two of the best casting moves ever: Liam Neeson as Zeus and Ralph Fiennes as Hades. From a casting perspective, those two choices just exude pure awesomeness! If anyone can play the king of the gods, it's Liam Neeson. And let's face it, Ralph Fiennes just has a way with villains. But to take it a level further, these two actors even look like they could be brothers!
It's just a shame that their talent was wasted on this movie. Especially with Liam Neeson, as his character was one of the most affected by the massive script overhaul. He can play a good villain, and he can play a good father-figure. But changing the game mid-point with no explanation just doesn't work. And that's not Mr. Neeson's fault: it's the filmmaker's.
I'll end my review with that. Ultimately, there's a lesson to be learned from this, and it's a pretty clear, blunt message. Don't overhault your script when shooting is almost done. And if you absolutely must make such huge changes, at least be prepared to compensate for these changes throughout the rest of the movie with the necessary explanations, development, etc.
Just to add a little disclaimer, I don't mean to offend anyone who liked this movie. Cheers to you, and I'm glad you had a good time!
God bless, and I'm off!
Introductions and All That Fun Stuff
So... this is my blog. Welcome, pull up a chair, make yourself at home.
To be really honest, I don't know how well I'm going to maintain this page... I opened it mostly for the sake of following some of my friends' blogs! But I do think I'll make some posts now and then. The majority of these posts will probably take the form of movie/book reviews and the like. As a film student, I tend to be pretty analytical with movies, so expect reviews of that nature, as well as my reaction to movie news and whatnot.
And who knows? There might be some random posts of craziness thrown in for good measure.
Well, that's all I've got for now. Check back later! I'm already planning on doing a review of Clash of the Titans -- which is a very interesting kind of fail, in my opinion -- as well as a review of what makes Avatar so interesting.
God bless!
To be really honest, I don't know how well I'm going to maintain this page... I opened it mostly for the sake of following some of my friends' blogs! But I do think I'll make some posts now and then. The majority of these posts will probably take the form of movie/book reviews and the like. As a film student, I tend to be pretty analytical with movies, so expect reviews of that nature, as well as my reaction to movie news and whatnot.
And who knows? There might be some random posts of craziness thrown in for good measure.
Well, that's all I've got for now. Check back later! I'm already planning on doing a review of Clash of the Titans -- which is a very interesting kind of fail, in my opinion -- as well as a review of what makes Avatar so interesting.
God bless!
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)