Normally summer is my peak movie watching season. For starters the theater offers a welcome respite from the heat. The days are longer so I usually have more leisure time. But the main reason is that Hollywood schedules their biggest movies for this time of year. Up until now, the summer of 2010 has been a bit disappointing. As you can see from the scarcity of my reviews, the only movie I had seen so far was the rather mediocre Robin Hood. And honestly the last few weeks when I had wanted to go and looked at the movie listings, nothing really inspired me to spend $12.00 on a ticket. Finally there was a worthy candidate when Inception came out, and the hype started building immediately after its release.
This review is going to be a bit difficult to write because I don’t want to give away too much to anyone who hasn’t seen it. But the basic premise has to do with dreams and the ability to either extract information from people’s dreams (extraction) or implant an idea in someone’s consciousness (inception). It’s the inception technique that becomes the “Big Score” of the film, and it kind of reminded me of a “Long Con” as alluded to in various con artist movies like The Sting.
The last hour or so of the movie is all about this big score, and I think this is where the movie really takes off. The amount of creativity involved here to create the layers upon layers of dreams is just amazing. Not only did the movie create layers of settings/scenarios (van chase, zero gravity hotel, snow fortress, and bizarre limbo), but each of these settings had different perceptions of time. One minute in the van could be an entire year in the lowest layer limbo. The amazing thing about the movie is that you feel the tension in each plot in each layer, and the fact that they’re all connected.
I’m not sure how long Christopher Nolan worked on the script, but however long it took, the guy is a creative genius. What really stands out about this movie is the creativity and originality compared to the rest of the films lately from Hollywood. In a typical week, 95% of the movies are either sequels, adaptations of comic books or graphic novels, or horrible big screen versions of old TV shows like The A-Team. I think this originality is what makes movies like Inception or the Matrix so great. Oddly enough, Hollywood doesn’t seem to recognize how much audiences will flock to this kind of creativity. This was evident in the completely sold out show I went to, now two weeks after the release. More likely, they do recognize the commercial success, it’s just not easy to find original ideas, and they go with quantity over quality.
The only criticism I can make about the movie was that it glosses over the finer details of how the dream sharing and architecture work. This is one of those movies where the viewer really has to just take things as they are presented. At one point in the movie, when Ellen Page’s character in undergoing her orientation, they use some cheesy explanation about military technology used to train soldiers. But they never explain how multiple people can share the same dream consciousness, or how one person can be an “architect” in another person’s dream. You basically just had to believe in the magic briefcase machine and suspend your disbelief – which honestly I didn't think was that hard to do.
Inception definitely lived up the hype. I have a feeling it will be at the top of most people’s list for best movies of 2010. I strongly recommend seeing it in the theater.
----------------------------------
Acting: 4 out of 5
Story/Script: 6 out of 5 (deserves an extra credit here)
Action Sequences: 5 out of 5
Sunday, July 25, 2010
Friday, June 4, 2010
Robin Hood
Ridley Scott and Russell Crowe know how to make epic hero movies. Throw in some great supporting actors (William Hurt, Cate Blanchett, Max von Sydow, and the bad-ass Widmore mercenary from Lost) and you have the foundation for a great summer movie.
The hero this time around is Robin Hood. And as I watched the movie, I got the sense that Ridley and Russell were drinking some beers one evening and throwing darts at a board covered in historical heroes and the dart (or arrow I suppose in this case) happened to land on Robin.
Even though Robin Hood is fictional, or perhaps loosely based on a historical person, it seems like the writers of the script were not content enough to give us a traditional chronicle of Robin’s story. Instead they tried to intertwine Robin with historical kings and medieval battles.
In one of the movie's opening scenes Robin is returning home from the Crusades and fighting alongside the English king Richard the Lionheart. Later on in the movie Robin fights in an epic battle alongside Richard’s brother the newly appointed King John. Neither of these battles are traditional Robin Hood stories as far as I know. One of the problems with the script is not only are these new twists on the Robin Hood legend that the audience has to absorb, but they also leave the viewer scratching their heads about the accuracy of anything else in the movie. When I got home from the theater I was curious about how Richard the Lionheart actually died, and sure enough the movie’s depiction was a complete fabrication – well, other than the fact a crossbow hastened his demise.
The cinematography and production value of the movie are superb however. The opening castle-assault scenes (where Richard eventually dies) were exciting to watch, and I really love the way Scott portrays historical battles. It almost makes you nostalgic for the times when men fought alongside their companions with swords and arrows instead of using remote-controlled drone fighters to drop smart bombs at unsuspecting targets. As long as you’ve played video games and are desensitized to the violence that is.
The other epic battle scene near the end of the movie has Robin and his men fighting alongside King John to repel the French invaders. Again, the production is superb. I can only imagine how much time and money must have been put into filming this sequence. There was no cheesy CGI here. What was cheesy however, was when Marion arrives in the middle of the battle with her rag-tag band of orphan kids. At first I thought it was supposed to be intentional comic relief!
One of the criticisms I had read about the movie is that it’s too similar to Gladiator. I thought that criticism was pretty fair. In particular, it really seemed like Mr. Scott was trying to use his old formula with King John. I thought they were trying way too hard to make John just like Joaquin Phoenix’s character in Gladiator, complete with crazy outbreaks, table flipping insanity, and jealousy of the hero's popularity among the masses.
Overall, I felt it was a pretty mediocre beginning to the summer blockbuster season for me. I know the movie has been out for a while, but it was the first one I’ve seen this summer, (which in my opinion officially begins on Memorial Day weekend). I would say to go see the movie if you want an entertaining, war/hero movie, and don’t care too much about plot or historical accuracy. Personally, I'm hoping the summer has some better material in store.
-----------------------------------------------
Acting: 3 out of 5
Story/Script: 2 out of 5
Cinematography/Production: 5 out of 5
The hero this time around is Robin Hood. And as I watched the movie, I got the sense that Ridley and Russell were drinking some beers one evening and throwing darts at a board covered in historical heroes and the dart (or arrow I suppose in this case) happened to land on Robin.
Even though Robin Hood is fictional, or perhaps loosely based on a historical person, it seems like the writers of the script were not content enough to give us a traditional chronicle of Robin’s story. Instead they tried to intertwine Robin with historical kings and medieval battles.
In one of the movie's opening scenes Robin is returning home from the Crusades and fighting alongside the English king Richard the Lionheart. Later on in the movie Robin fights in an epic battle alongside Richard’s brother the newly appointed King John. Neither of these battles are traditional Robin Hood stories as far as I know. One of the problems with the script is not only are these new twists on the Robin Hood legend that the audience has to absorb, but they also leave the viewer scratching their heads about the accuracy of anything else in the movie. When I got home from the theater I was curious about how Richard the Lionheart actually died, and sure enough the movie’s depiction was a complete fabrication – well, other than the fact a crossbow hastened his demise.
The cinematography and production value of the movie are superb however. The opening castle-assault scenes (where Richard eventually dies) were exciting to watch, and I really love the way Scott portrays historical battles. It almost makes you nostalgic for the times when men fought alongside their companions with swords and arrows instead of using remote-controlled drone fighters to drop smart bombs at unsuspecting targets. As long as you’ve played video games and are desensitized to the violence that is.
The other epic battle scene near the end of the movie has Robin and his men fighting alongside King John to repel the French invaders. Again, the production is superb. I can only imagine how much time and money must have been put into filming this sequence. There was no cheesy CGI here. What was cheesy however, was when Marion arrives in the middle of the battle with her rag-tag band of orphan kids. At first I thought it was supposed to be intentional comic relief!
One of the criticisms I had read about the movie is that it’s too similar to Gladiator. I thought that criticism was pretty fair. In particular, it really seemed like Mr. Scott was trying to use his old formula with King John. I thought they were trying way too hard to make John just like Joaquin Phoenix’s character in Gladiator, complete with crazy outbreaks, table flipping insanity, and jealousy of the hero's popularity among the masses.
Overall, I felt it was a pretty mediocre beginning to the summer blockbuster season for me. I know the movie has been out for a while, but it was the first one I’ve seen this summer, (which in my opinion officially begins on Memorial Day weekend). I would say to go see the movie if you want an entertaining, war/hero movie, and don’t care too much about plot or historical accuracy. Personally, I'm hoping the summer has some better material in store.
-----------------------------------------------
Acting: 3 out of 5
Story/Script: 2 out of 5
Cinematography/Production: 5 out of 5
Friday, January 22, 2010
Avatar
I was rather late to the whole Avatar party. I had heard the buzz about the special effects long before the movie came out, but I think the initial reports about the story being a repeat of other movies as well as the long lines and sold-out theaters kept me away until today. But today was one of those cold, rainy January days that are perfect for a three hour movie and off I went.
Since I was a bit behind the curve on seeing the movie, I had previously seen puzzling reports in the media about viewers suffering a post-movie depression – the “Avatar blues”. What could possibly cause people to be depressed about seeing a cool special effects movie? After finally watching it, believe it or not, I went from puzzled to empathetic. Without giving the end of the movie away here, the rebirth theme is so strong and the guilt trip so intense, that I can understand people feeling that perhaps their reality is a bad dream that they cannot wake up from.
The guilt trip I am referring to is what is alluded to in the movie’s storyline – that humans destroyed their “mother Earth” and were seeking new planets like Pandora to take resources from (I must interject here that calling the mineral unobtainium was a bit cheesy). I’m not a new age Gaia worshiper who believes that the planet is actually alive or is some kind of a deity. But as I was leaving the movie theater I was reminded of how much we take our planet for granted. The theater I went to in Manassas, Virginia, is located in a shopping center that was literally built against the border of the protected land of the Bull Run National Battlefield Park. The suburban sprawl around the park has gotten so bad in the last few decades that the park is essentially surrounded by residential and commercial developments. Thousands of people live on one side of the park and work on the other.
To me the park is a small sanctuary from modern life where I can go for walks to escape the houses, cars, power lines, and Starbucks, that dominate this area. But as I was driving home through the park (sadly, it has been proposed that the 2-lane road through the park be replaced by a mega-expressway to more easily allow people to traverse the few miles) I thought to myself, “Why is this park here?” It’s not because we humans appreciate the pristine landscape or the trees, waterways, or wildlife. No, the only reason the park exists at all is because the land is preserved to commemorate a horrible war that took place there. The land is considered a sacred Civil War memorial (although evidently in Virginia even Civil War battlefields are not sacred enough to escape the grasp of Wal-Mart).
I also found myself asking many other questions as I idled at a stop light watching the exhaust from the car in front of me: Why do we live like this in our modern societies so far removed from nature? Why do we feel that 5 minutes of driving time is more valuable than 500 acres of wilderness? Why is the chunk of coal in the mountain more valuable to us than the mountain itself? Side note: I grew up in West Virginia and still visit my parents frequently. I often see billboards that say “Coal – It Keeps the Lights On”. Were we born thinking that the earth was given to us to exploit, or were we slowly brainwashed by propaganda like this?
Yes, the Avatar story has been done before – in “Dances with Wolves” or “The Last Samurai.” But maybe we need to see it again, because I don't think we've learned anything and we sure haven’t changed our ways. As the humans were destroying the Na’vi home tree in the movie, I couldn’t help but think about the parallel to the Republican national convention in 2008, and the rallying cry of thousands of people yelling “Drill Baby Drill” to show support of drilling for oil on the Alaskan wildlife preserve. The world of Pandora might be fictional, and the story of Avatar unoriginal, but the message bears repeating until enough people wake up.
-----------------------------------------------
Acting: 3 out of 5
Story: 3 out of 5
Special Effects: 6 out of 5 (they deserve some extra credit)
Since I was a bit behind the curve on seeing the movie, I had previously seen puzzling reports in the media about viewers suffering a post-movie depression – the “Avatar blues”. What could possibly cause people to be depressed about seeing a cool special effects movie? After finally watching it, believe it or not, I went from puzzled to empathetic. Without giving the end of the movie away here, the rebirth theme is so strong and the guilt trip so intense, that I can understand people feeling that perhaps their reality is a bad dream that they cannot wake up from.
The guilt trip I am referring to is what is alluded to in the movie’s storyline – that humans destroyed their “mother Earth” and were seeking new planets like Pandora to take resources from (I must interject here that calling the mineral unobtainium was a bit cheesy). I’m not a new age Gaia worshiper who believes that the planet is actually alive or is some kind of a deity. But as I was leaving the movie theater I was reminded of how much we take our planet for granted. The theater I went to in Manassas, Virginia, is located in a shopping center that was literally built against the border of the protected land of the Bull Run National Battlefield Park. The suburban sprawl around the park has gotten so bad in the last few decades that the park is essentially surrounded by residential and commercial developments. Thousands of people live on one side of the park and work on the other.
To me the park is a small sanctuary from modern life where I can go for walks to escape the houses, cars, power lines, and Starbucks, that dominate this area. But as I was driving home through the park (sadly, it has been proposed that the 2-lane road through the park be replaced by a mega-expressway to more easily allow people to traverse the few miles) I thought to myself, “Why is this park here?” It’s not because we humans appreciate the pristine landscape or the trees, waterways, or wildlife. No, the only reason the park exists at all is because the land is preserved to commemorate a horrible war that took place there. The land is considered a sacred Civil War memorial (although evidently in Virginia even Civil War battlefields are not sacred enough to escape the grasp of Wal-Mart).
I also found myself asking many other questions as I idled at a stop light watching the exhaust from the car in front of me: Why do we live like this in our modern societies so far removed from nature? Why do we feel that 5 minutes of driving time is more valuable than 500 acres of wilderness? Why is the chunk of coal in the mountain more valuable to us than the mountain itself? Side note: I grew up in West Virginia and still visit my parents frequently. I often see billboards that say “Coal – It Keeps the Lights On”. Were we born thinking that the earth was given to us to exploit, or were we slowly brainwashed by propaganda like this?
Yes, the Avatar story has been done before – in “Dances with Wolves” or “The Last Samurai.” But maybe we need to see it again, because I don't think we've learned anything and we sure haven’t changed our ways. As the humans were destroying the Na’vi home tree in the movie, I couldn’t help but think about the parallel to the Republican national convention in 2008, and the rallying cry of thousands of people yelling “Drill Baby Drill” to show support of drilling for oil on the Alaskan wildlife preserve. The world of Pandora might be fictional, and the story of Avatar unoriginal, but the message bears repeating until enough people wake up.
-----------------------------------------------
Acting: 3 out of 5
Story: 3 out of 5
Special Effects: 6 out of 5 (they deserve some extra credit)
Thursday, January 7, 2010
Invictus
I heard that Morgan Freeman once said that whenever Clint Eastwood called him up about a movie he was working on to see if he was interested in playing a part he responded yes without even looking at the script. Smart man. I have been a huge fan of Eastwood not only as an actor but a director my whole life. To this day my favorite Western movie remains "The Outlaw Josey Wales" which I believe was Eastwood's directorial debut. And of course as far as Westerns go the Freeman/Eastwood tandem in "Unforgiven" has to rank highly on anyone's list.
So walking into the theater to see Invictus, I expected good things. And the movie exceeded my expectations.
I thought Freeman's role as Nelson Mandela was easily has best acting work of his long career. I started to think of all the other roles he has been in over the years, and it is a very long and distinguished list, but I don't remember him ever playing a part this convincingly. I really believed that he was Mandela. In fact, at the end of the film they display some actual photos of the rugby team that the film was based on. One photo shows Mandela in the Springbok uniform he wore for the championship game. I knew it was the real Mandela in the photo, but after watching Freeman play him, it just didn't look right.
My favorite part of the film was not the rugby game or the "feel good" parts of the movie (although the film does leave you with a great sense of elation), but the part where Freeman reads the William Henley poem that the title of the movie is taken from. I had never heard the poem before, and when Freeman reads it, it gave me chills. The last two lines, "I am the master of my fate. I am the captain of my soul" capture the essence of the man who spent so many years in a tiny prison cell and overcame incredible odds and adversity and finally triumphed.
Go see this movie if you get a chance, you will not be disappointed.
----------------------------------------------------
So far I have refrained from using any rating system for my reviews, mainly because I find them to be pretty useless. However, I decided to make it a goal to get these reviews on a compilation site like Rotten Tomatoes, so in order to achieve that I guess they need some kind of quantitative value. Since I think there are many different criteria you can use to judge a movie, instead of one overall rating, I'm going to use three ratings. Here they are for Invictus:
-----------------------------------------
Acting: 5 out of 5 - Morgan Freeman gives a superb performance with good supporting jobs by Matt Damon and cast
Story: 5 out of 5 - Although the basic story of Mandela is widely known, most people don't know about the rugby team, and the story here is well constructed
Special Effects: 4 out of 5 - Not really a meaningful category for this movie, other than the rugby scenes. But I wanted to include this as one of my ratings categories since a lot of today's movies like Avatar are focused on this.
So walking into the theater to see Invictus, I expected good things. And the movie exceeded my expectations.
I thought Freeman's role as Nelson Mandela was easily has best acting work of his long career. I started to think of all the other roles he has been in over the years, and it is a very long and distinguished list, but I don't remember him ever playing a part this convincingly. I really believed that he was Mandela. In fact, at the end of the film they display some actual photos of the rugby team that the film was based on. One photo shows Mandela in the Springbok uniform he wore for the championship game. I knew it was the real Mandela in the photo, but after watching Freeman play him, it just didn't look right.
My favorite part of the film was not the rugby game or the "feel good" parts of the movie (although the film does leave you with a great sense of elation), but the part where Freeman reads the William Henley poem that the title of the movie is taken from. I had never heard the poem before, and when Freeman reads it, it gave me chills. The last two lines, "I am the master of my fate. I am the captain of my soul" capture the essence of the man who spent so many years in a tiny prison cell and overcame incredible odds and adversity and finally triumphed.
Go see this movie if you get a chance, you will not be disappointed.
----------------------------------------------------
So far I have refrained from using any rating system for my reviews, mainly because I find them to be pretty useless. However, I decided to make it a goal to get these reviews on a compilation site like Rotten Tomatoes, so in order to achieve that I guess they need some kind of quantitative value. Since I think there are many different criteria you can use to judge a movie, instead of one overall rating, I'm going to use three ratings. Here they are for Invictus:
-----------------------------------------
Acting: 5 out of 5 - Morgan Freeman gives a superb performance with good supporting jobs by Matt Damon and cast
Story: 5 out of 5 - Although the basic story of Mandela is widely known, most people don't know about the rugby team, and the story here is well constructed
Special Effects: 4 out of 5 - Not really a meaningful category for this movie, other than the rugby scenes. But I wanted to include this as one of my ratings categories since a lot of today's movies like Avatar are focused on this.
Saturday, October 17, 2009
Zombieland
The funniest thing about Zombieland was the conversation I had with my friend after watching the movie. First, a bit of an embarassing admission: As much as I enjoy movies, I am often not very good at remembering actors and actresses names and faces. In fact, for the longest time I thought Laura Linney and Frances McDormand were the same person.
So with that in mind, as we were leaving the theatre, my friend said, "You could tell that the studio really wanted Michael Cera for that role [of Columbus]."
"That name sounds familiar," I replied. "Who is Michael Cera?"
"You know, the guy from Juno and Superbad."
I gave him a puzzled look, "Huh? We didn't just watch him for 90 minutes?"
"Uhhh..No, that was some guy pretending to be Michael Cera."
At that point I had one of those face-palm moments where I realized once again I watched an entire movie thinking the primary actor was someone else. In my defense, my friend was right. It was as if the studio had designed the role exclusively for Cera, had not been able to get him, and had found his closest doppelganger and forced him to watch every Michael Cera movie to emulate his speech and mannerisms. So my suggestion to anyone who hasn't seen the movie yet is to just be oblivious like me and pretend it really is Cera playing Columbus.
As far as the movie itself goes, I think it qualifies as 2-for-2 in my movie disappointment scorecard this year. District 9 - the last movie I went to with high expectations based on word-of-mouth and critic's reviews - also failed to deliver. And both left an equally disappointing feeling afterwards.
To be fair, Zombieland had some good moments. But it certainly was not that funny, or that campy, or that clever. The movie didn't really have any plot other than some cheesy climax of people learning to be happy with what you have and "love the one you're with." So you had to be content with random zombie encounters and their inevitable gory slaying. Those, plus an extended Bill Murray cameo.
My favorite part was the survival "rules" that Columbus had, and which they kept displaying at any opportune moment. But at the same time they felt like a gimmick that has been used before in other movies (I've been struggling to verify this and have come up empty, so maybe I'm mistaken here). Also the Woody Harrelson (Tallahasee) and Michael Cera want-to-be pairing was great. My favorite scene was when Columbus sprays Tallahassee with perfume, tries to stammer an apology, and Tallahasee tells him, "I've kicked major ass for a lot less than that. I'm gonna give you about 45% power," then delivers a punch.
To sum it up, I would say to go see Zombieland if you want some mindless (pun intended) entertainment for an hour and a half. It might get you in the Halloween spirit a little, and give you some escapism, but don't go in expecting to laugh hysterically or be caught in suspense.
So with that in mind, as we were leaving the theatre, my friend said, "You could tell that the studio really wanted Michael Cera for that role [of Columbus]."
"That name sounds familiar," I replied. "Who is Michael Cera?"
"You know, the guy from Juno and Superbad."
I gave him a puzzled look, "Huh? We didn't just watch him for 90 minutes?"
"Uhhh..No, that was some guy pretending to be Michael Cera."
At that point I had one of those face-palm moments where I realized once again I watched an entire movie thinking the primary actor was someone else. In my defense, my friend was right. It was as if the studio had designed the role exclusively for Cera, had not been able to get him, and had found his closest doppelganger and forced him to watch every Michael Cera movie to emulate his speech and mannerisms. So my suggestion to anyone who hasn't seen the movie yet is to just be oblivious like me and pretend it really is Cera playing Columbus.
As far as the movie itself goes, I think it qualifies as 2-for-2 in my movie disappointment scorecard this year. District 9 - the last movie I went to with high expectations based on word-of-mouth and critic's reviews - also failed to deliver. And both left an equally disappointing feeling afterwards.
To be fair, Zombieland had some good moments. But it certainly was not that funny, or that campy, or that clever. The movie didn't really have any plot other than some cheesy climax of people learning to be happy with what you have and "love the one you're with." So you had to be content with random zombie encounters and their inevitable gory slaying. Those, plus an extended Bill Murray cameo.
My favorite part was the survival "rules" that Columbus had, and which they kept displaying at any opportune moment. But at the same time they felt like a gimmick that has been used before in other movies (I've been struggling to verify this and have come up empty, so maybe I'm mistaken here). Also the Woody Harrelson (Tallahasee) and Michael Cera want-to-be pairing was great. My favorite scene was when Columbus sprays Tallahassee with perfume, tries to stammer an apology, and Tallahasee tells him, "I've kicked major ass for a lot less than that. I'm gonna give you about 45% power," then delivers a punch.
To sum it up, I would say to go see Zombieland if you want some mindless (pun intended) entertainment for an hour and a half. It might get you in the Halloween spirit a little, and give you some escapism, but don't go in expecting to laugh hysterically or be caught in suspense.
Friday, August 21, 2009
District 9
I love sci-fi movies. I am one of the only people I know who liked A.I., the Steven Spielberg/Stanley Kubrick clunker. So I wanted to see District 9 as soon as I saw the previews, and was excited when it got pretty good reviews and popularity the first week after release. But I must say I was rather disappointed after seeing it yesterday.
Overall, District 9 is not a horrible film. Peter Jackson uses an interesting technique where he tells the story almost as a documentary. This throws you off at first when the movie starts, but once you get used to the style it feels natural. I also think he used this technique in a desperate attempt to smooth over a lot of glaring plot holes (see below). There are no "named" actors in the movie, which is both good and bad. Even the lead actor is a no-name (Sharlto Copley), but he plays the lead role of the bumbling son-in-law of the evil corporate CEO surprisingly well, and is probably the best part of the movie.
My biggest issue with the movie, without giving too much away, is the huge plot holes. For instance, the aliens are far more advanced than humans and are capable of creating superior weapons out of junk. In fact, this is the central theme of the movie: power-hungry humans are trying to get these awesome alien weapons. But the ponderous part is that these more advanced aliens are either too stupid or too lethargic to use any of their own weapons to break out of their "concentration camp." To buy into the central plot, you have to believe that the aliens are not capable of an idea a 3-year old human would conceive; yet you also must believe that they can swiftly create a powerful alien bomb in 2 seconds by throwing together a few junked parts. Hard to swallow.
My other issue with the movie is the one-dimensional human characters (except for the lead character). For instance, the evil CEO is so bent on obtaining the alien technology that he would lie to his daughter and kill anyone. 95% of the humans in the film are depicted as being mono-maniacal in that all they care about is alien weapons. I guess that is supposed to drive home the take-home point of the movie that human nature can often be the worse thing in the universe. But it seems like this could have been shown a little more sophisticated. I mean human nature isn't that one-dimensional.
Overall, I would rate it on par with I, Robot. Another sci-fi movie that I liked for the sci-fi aspects, but that's about it. See it if you're a science-fiction fan, wait for video if you're not.
Overall, District 9 is not a horrible film. Peter Jackson uses an interesting technique where he tells the story almost as a documentary. This throws you off at first when the movie starts, but once you get used to the style it feels natural. I also think he used this technique in a desperate attempt to smooth over a lot of glaring plot holes (see below). There are no "named" actors in the movie, which is both good and bad. Even the lead actor is a no-name (Sharlto Copley), but he plays the lead role of the bumbling son-in-law of the evil corporate CEO surprisingly well, and is probably the best part of the movie.
My biggest issue with the movie, without giving too much away, is the huge plot holes. For instance, the aliens are far more advanced than humans and are capable of creating superior weapons out of junk. In fact, this is the central theme of the movie: power-hungry humans are trying to get these awesome alien weapons. But the ponderous part is that these more advanced aliens are either too stupid or too lethargic to use any of their own weapons to break out of their "concentration camp." To buy into the central plot, you have to believe that the aliens are not capable of an idea a 3-year old human would conceive; yet you also must believe that they can swiftly create a powerful alien bomb in 2 seconds by throwing together a few junked parts. Hard to swallow.
My other issue with the movie is the one-dimensional human characters (except for the lead character). For instance, the evil CEO is so bent on obtaining the alien technology that he would lie to his daughter and kill anyone. 95% of the humans in the film are depicted as being mono-maniacal in that all they care about is alien weapons. I guess that is supposed to drive home the take-home point of the movie that human nature can often be the worse thing in the universe. But it seems like this could have been shown a little more sophisticated. I mean human nature isn't that one-dimensional.
Overall, I would rate it on par with I, Robot. Another sci-fi movie that I liked for the sci-fi aspects, but that's about it. See it if you're a science-fiction fan, wait for video if you're not.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)