Long time no talk

Hello, boys and girls!

It's been awhile since I've been here, and I thought it was time to get back into the swing of things. For starters, I've published all of the back reviews that have been going up elsewhere on the world wide web. Sorry if they seem a bit late (since they're essentially all on DVD now).

So, stay tuned, as my attention will be geared towards you all very frequently, and I'll be placing more news and review worthy items down. In the meantime, let me know what you're must-see summer movie is, or if you even have one. These questions keep me up at night!

Until later, screen fiends!

~Ryan

Stealing Your Money: Avatar and the 3D Machine

The film Avatar, now on DVD, has sparked a lot of conversation about its animation. The film implemented 3D into the film, forcing audiences everywhere to pay at least twelve dollars to wear sunglasses in order to experience the true nature of the film. But as other films attempt to follow the success of Avatar by implementing 3D into their own films, we need to ask the question: is it really worth it?

In the case of Avatar, yes it is. However, there is a very large difference between what James Cameron has created withAvatar, and what other directors are attempting to achieve with their own “3D” films. What we have is a clash between 3D as art, and 3D as a marketing gimmick.

It’s no wonder Avatar has become the highest grossing movie of all time, considering that it spent its entire run in 3D, and many weeks in IMAX theaters, all of which cost extra money to view. But in the film’s case, the 3D animation was not just for the money. Avatar was actually filmed in 3D, using high tech equipment and special technology that effectively leaps over theUncanny Valley (which states the more realistic something appears, the less realistic it will feel), and creates a CGI world that is practically reality. However, with the success of James Cameron’s ideas and ventures, other films have taken to 3D as well.

Unfortunately, these studios have different ideas. Since Avatar was filmed in 3D and was meant to revolutionize the film industry, it legitimately becomes a form of art, creating a realistic world in which we can become a part, as well as contributing to the industry as the technological world around us grows. Because of its monstrous success (due to high prices at theaters), other studios have decided to transpose their films into 3D as well. The difference here is that these new movies, including Clash of the Titans and Alice in Wonderland, all added 3D in post-production. So what exactly does this do to the film? For example: the 3D conversion process for Clash of the Titans was ten weeks. However, the studio only pushed the release date of the film by one week. When released, the 3D versions of the film were said to be choppy and ill-made, and that the 2D version was the superior version.

So then, what’s so great about 3D? It depends on who’s making it. 3D can be a legitimate form of art, seen in Avatar. Unfortunately, many studios see it as a marketing tool get more money. The new film Shrek Ever Afterwas “filmed” in 3D, but the previous threeShrek films did fine without the conversion. The reason for the conversion? More money for the studio. The creative integrity disappears once the studio starts focusing solely on how they can grab as much money as possible.

Many years ago, films were a vibrant art form. In recent years, it has turned into pure entertainment, and unfortunately those films that are meant as a form of art tend to be largely ignored. While the occasional indie film might make it into the spotlight, or a big-grossing movie such as The Dark Knight or District 9 may show its wings as a “thinking man’s movie,” the majority of films in theaters are those that require less thinking, and more explosions. When it comes to 3D,Avatar shows that the conversion itself can act in a way that propels the art of filmmaking, and can draw people to the theater for the same reason they go to an art museum. However, the majority of studios are misusing 3D and giving it a bad name. 3D is not a bad thing for the film industry. Instead of using it just to draw money, the studios should be looking back to when they stood as an institution of art, and rediscover just what it means to make a film.

...this is one of the moments where I actually reserve what I think about the film. Weird. Although, to be fair, the film is totally cliched. Just with amazing CGI.

Rating: 7.5/10

Extra: If I'm going to pay $3 extra to pay for cheap 3D glasses, I'm f*****g keeping them.

Alice in Wonderland: Hollywood vs. the Novel

The collaboration of Tim Burton and Johnny Depp is nothing new. They’ve been together a total of nine times, and they’ve brought in some good money from the theaters. However, when Burton works with Depp, he has a tendency to remake a text, such as Alice in Wonderland, which is currently in theaters. At what point does this rewriting destroy or enhance the original text?

Movies based off of books have been happening since films first started, so this is not by any means a new concept to Hollywood. We must consider, though, that as movies are remade, so are the texts, and something new must be brought to the table to make the story seem fresh. The new version of Alice in Wonderland, starring Mia Wasikowska and Johnny Depp, treats the original textual script differently than many novel-to-movie treatments. In the end, it may end up enhancing the story.

First, let’s consider some of the films based off of novels that are ingrained in culture. To start with Tim Burton’s films, there’s the either fantastic or terrifically bad Sleepy Hollow, or the deservedly award-winning Big Fish.With the former film, we see an outlandish take on an old tale. With the latter, we see something very comparable to the original text. Arguably, we can say that the latter is better than the former because it is so close to the text. That’s the reason everyone liked Lord of the Rings, right? Other movies that are considered as greats are very similar to the original text: i.e. The Shawshank Redemption, The Godfather.

In 1980, Stanley Kubrick (arguably one of the greatest directors to ever live) adapted a Stephen King book called “The Shining.” Rewriting it for the screen, Kubrick reinvented the story. It stands as one of the greatest films of all time, but it vastly surpasses the book in style, mood, and effect. The script ending up being very different than the original text, and the ending itself (considered one of the greatest film endings) is nothing like the ending of the novel. So, how are we to respond to a film that is vastly different than its textual influence, especially if the film surpasses the strength and effect of the novel? Tim Burton’s Alice in Wonderland indicates a direction that filmmakers must take to redefine the texts that influence their films.

Expand the world of the story. It is as simple as that. In Steven Spielberg’s grossly underrated film, “Hook,” he expands the world of Peter Pan and Wendy Darling by basing it nearly seventy years into the future. While still including the elements of the original story, we are able to see what happens later in the characters’ lives, and how the original text affects all of them personally. It’s a story we all know, but are able to enjoy a new story with the same charactersbecause we all recognize the original text. Alice in Wonderland approaches the same concept, by using the original two texts by Lewis Carroll and creating a new story with a familiar world and familiar characters.

In modern filmmaking, people watch a movie, read the source it was based off, then decide which was better: the film or the novel. Neither one should be superior; each has its own merit and its own interpretation. By expanding the world of the story, the characters seem more real, rather than contained within a brief period in their lives. We are able to see the world open before our eyes. Unfortunately, this could spawn the ultimate “sequel-syndrome” that Hollywood is currently in love with, but as viewers we must oppose this. Instead, we must prove that each story is a self-contained universe, and each universe should be explored and portrayed to audience.

Whether or not Alice in Wonderland is a good movie is debatable. It has moments of epic adventure, while other times it has outlandish humor. If this fits into the original Alice in Wonderland however, is irrelevant. Tim Burton and the screenwriter, Linda Woolverton, created a new story, based off of a classic text. And a door should be opened. A door to familiar stories being revisited and continued. Let us see what happens to the Beast and Belle years after Gaston has been killed. Or what happens to Sherwood Forest as Robin Hood grows older. Let the characters flourish, spread, and create a world in which they can live. Hollywood has done enough rehashing of classic stories. It’s time to pay homage to these stories, and to open the doors to a new form of textual influence.

Alice in Wonderland is a fun adaptation of a classic, and interestingly continues the story that everyone is familiar with. However, Burton's is a tad overambitious in his use of the CGI, and it whittles down the story to a mass of colors and details. Fun to look at, but not fun to listen to.

Rating: 6.5/10

Extra: Tim Burton needs to get away from Disney. Only then can we have an adaptation on par with something as epically fantastic as Sleepy Hollow.

Sensitive Material: The Green Zone

As the War in Iraq rages on in the Middle East, directors continue to flex their political muscles by portraying soldiers during American affairs. As director Paul Greengrass reunites with Matt Damon, in another action thriller collaboration, to create the film The Green Zone, he presents unintentional question to the American public: when will it be appropriate to create a film based on American political exploits?

Matt Damon plays Chief Warrant Officer Roy Miller, who is in charge of the search for Weapons of Mass Destruction. However, after months of finding nothing, he begins to question their sources of intel. His questioning sparks the uncovering of a government conspiracy as American politicians fight to control the blooming democratic government in Iraq.

What makes the film so intriguing is not necessarily the plot of the film, or the political agenda it upholds. The current appeal this film holds is the public reaction. Touching upon a touchy subject such as the prolonged search for WMDs within the Middle East is a difficult task, and some people thought that the political agenda Paul Greengrass was interested in emphasizing was, in fact, Un-American.

Greengrass is not new to filming such sensitive material. In 2006, he directed United 93, a film about the exploits of flight United 93 on September 11, 2001, as the passengers overtook the terrorists, forcing it to crash in Pennsylvania. But, while United 93 was acclaimed for its poignancy and tenderness, The Green Zone was seen as an action film about Americans vs. Americans. As some reviewers wrote, the film is a slanderous piece of Hollywood that insults America.

However, the political agenda, whether it is overemphasized by the public or the filmmakers, is not the entire issue that the film presents. As people bring their political views to the film and let their right-wing or left-wing loyalties sway their opinions on The Green Zone, we see the true issue that Greengrass is presenting. The film portrays sensitive material, because it involves a bloody and political situation that the U.S. is still embroiled in.

At this point, we wonder: for how long must filmmakers ignore the world around them, and concentrate on films that don’t approach modern-day subjects? At what point would The Green Zone have been accepted as an action film with a nice twist on reality? Twenty years? Inglourious Basterds, Tarantino’s last film, which was shown in theaters a year ago, took reality and turned it into a piece of fiction. Yet, audiences worldwide accepted this altered reality. If this film were to have been released directly following World War II, would audiences have accepted it, or would they have labeled it as slanderous and insulting to veterans of the war?

The reviewers and critics who assaulted The Green Zone are indeed the minority, as many critics thought it to be a fun action film and a relatively realistic look into the War in Iraq (the film is based off of the book “Imperial Life in the Emerald City,” which documented life in the Green Zone, located in Baghdad). But the negative views of the film bring to light just how audiences view the world around them. The Green Zone is an honest approach to the War in Iraq simply because it involves a political agenda, and opinions from Paul Greengrass. Without the agenda or the opinions, the film would be useless fluff. Good, thought provoking films are what Hollywood needs, and they are what should be produced.

We have to wonder how sensitive we can allow ourselves to be when viewing a film like The Green Zone. How long must it take for the film to be accepted, and for it to not “insult” America? What the negative critics viewed in the film was an insubordinate Army officer fighting Americans. However, the film embodies humans, not Americans. It’s not about Americans vs. Americans, and it’s not supporting the Iraqi military, or even slandering American values. What Paul Greengrass creates is a film that discusses the values of right and wrong, and the consequences behind the decisions. And if we don’t open our minds and allow ourselves to view the film as an opinionated piece with meaning, then we have missed the point.

The film itself was well done, although if you got a little nauseas watching the shaky camera work (literally) in the last two Jason Bourne installments, then this won't fix anything. It should be noted, though, that to enjoy The Green Zone, you truly need to leave your political inhibitions at the door.

Rating: 7.5/10

Extra: I'm okay with Matt Damon becoming an action star, as long as he keeps being a badass, and the studios decide to give him a love interest...that they don't kill.