Avatar
Starring:Sam Worthington, Zoe Saldana, Sigourney Weaver, Stephen Lang, Michelle Rodriguez
Director + Written by: James Cameron
Rating: 5 out of 5 stars
In todays movie society, the majority of movies are complicated in story. There is always an underlying theme, a secret villian, or unexpected twist. In 'Avatar,' there is never such a scene or character throughout the whole movie.
The story revolves around marine Jake Sully who is disabled in his legs. His brother was a scientist who worked on an island called Pandora, and had the task of communicating with the Pandorian natives known as the Na'avi. The Na'avi have made their home on top of the planet's most valuable mineral. The humans want to peacefully remove the Na'avi and take the mineral without starting a war. In order to change out of their human form and into Na'avi form, scientists create avatars. Jake's brother had an avatar. However, his unexpected death causes company executives to ask Jake to fill his spot in return for a high salary (which could pay for an operation on his legs). Jake takes his brothers spot and is facinated by his new legs and tail. He is led into the forest by a group of scientists. His task is to befriend the Na'avi and find a way to move them out of their home so that the mineral they came for can be taken. Jake is accepted into the Na'avi and is trained by Neytiri (the daughter of the tribe leader). He and Neytiri fall in love and the rest of the movie explains how Jake saves their home from uter destruction.
There is nothing extremely appealing about this plot on paper, but than again movies aren't shown on paper. "Avatar" shows the viewer more than it tells, and it takes certain skill to be able to do that. That is why James Cameron's 'Avatar' is such a wonderful movie.
The simple love story in association with action, comedy, great graphics, and original lines make an amazing movie. My recommendation, find time and go watch this movie.
Sunday, January 3, 2010
Tuesday, December 29, 2009
The Princess and the Frog
The Princess and the Frog
Rated:G
2 out of 5 stars
The hype surrounding Disney's first hand drawn cartoon movie since 2004's Home on the Range, was like many movies, overexagerrated. There are many areas where the story is lacking detail and the characters are left too open for interpretation. For example, our hero, Naveen is supposedly a prince who has been cut off from his parents fortune. There is no certain reason, causing the viewer to wait for the answer, and the answer never arrives. There is also our friendly jazz alligator (based on Louis Armstrong) who just has an urge to play music. Why?! We never find out.
There is also the frustration of watching two-second jokes (jokes that are short and undeveloped; mainly physical humilation). A good example is "The Shadow Man" try and convince his friends on the other side to help him catch a frog. There was a nice laugh, and then BAM! it's all dramatic again.
There were several twists to the story that usually Disney never has, including the literal death of a main charater. The drawings were out of the world, and the unique voices saved the movie from utter disaster.
The overall conclusion though, is save your money and rent it at the red box. Disney, you failed this time.
Rated:G
2 out of 5 stars
The hype surrounding Disney's first hand drawn cartoon movie since 2004's Home on the Range, was like many movies, overexagerrated. There are many areas where the story is lacking detail and the characters are left too open for interpretation. For example, our hero, Naveen is supposedly a prince who has been cut off from his parents fortune. There is no certain reason, causing the viewer to wait for the answer, and the answer never arrives. There is also our friendly jazz alligator (based on Louis Armstrong) who just has an urge to play music. Why?! We never find out.
There is also the frustration of watching two-second jokes (jokes that are short and undeveloped; mainly physical humilation). A good example is "The Shadow Man" try and convince his friends on the other side to help him catch a frog. There was a nice laugh, and then BAM! it's all dramatic again.
There were several twists to the story that usually Disney never has, including the literal death of a main charater. The drawings were out of the world, and the unique voices saved the movie from utter disaster.
The overall conclusion though, is save your money and rent it at the red box. Disney, you failed this time.
Monday, December 21, 2009
Inglourious Basterds
Director: Quentin Tarantino
Year of Release: 2009
Starring: Brad Pitt, Diane Kruger, Mélanie Laurent, and Eli Roth
3 out of 5 stars
There are many things that make a historical movie good or bad. One of them is how closely events that occured are portrayed. In "Saving Private Ryan," Normandy Beach was showed for what it truely was, a massacre. The same thing in almost all other movies.
What makes Tarantino's 'Basterds' so exceptional is that all historical events are blown out the door. Scenes show how harsh Nazi's were in real life, and how Jewish runaways were treated. But no one watched this movie to see history class acted out on Brad Pitt's face, but to see how Tarantino was going to deliver such a harassed theme in a fresh and colorful new way. It is safe to say that he did pretty well. However, the lack of character development and forced excessive violence really brought down the shining story line. However, certain character's did shine bright in character, for example, Christopher Waltz as "the Jew Hunter." The curtness of his voice and the cold pride he takes in hunting Jews catches the audiences breath and steals it. The best part of this movie was, the mix in the story. Spoiler Alert: Hitler does die at the hands of two Americans and a crazy Jew with a black man. How many non-comedic WWII movies do that? The bigger question, how many make it look good? None that this writer can think of. So the final conclusion on "Inglourious Basterds," is that this is one of those movies you watch to be able to carry a conversation at the lunch table.
Year of Release: 2009
Starring: Brad Pitt, Diane Kruger, Mélanie Laurent, and Eli Roth
3 out of 5 stars
There are many things that make a historical movie good or bad. One of them is how closely events that occured are portrayed. In "Saving Private Ryan," Normandy Beach was showed for what it truely was, a massacre. The same thing in almost all other movies.
What makes Tarantino's 'Basterds' so exceptional is that all historical events are blown out the door. Scenes show how harsh Nazi's were in real life, and how Jewish runaways were treated. But no one watched this movie to see history class acted out on Brad Pitt's face, but to see how Tarantino was going to deliver such a harassed theme in a fresh and colorful new way. It is safe to say that he did pretty well. However, the lack of character development and forced excessive violence really brought down the shining story line. However, certain character's did shine bright in character, for example, Christopher Waltz as "the Jew Hunter." The curtness of his voice and the cold pride he takes in hunting Jews catches the audiences breath and steals it. The best part of this movie was, the mix in the story. Spoiler Alert: Hitler does die at the hands of two Americans and a crazy Jew with a black man. How many non-comedic WWII movies do that? The bigger question, how many make it look good? None that this writer can think of. So the final conclusion on "Inglourious Basterds," is that this is one of those movies you watch to be able to carry a conversation at the lunch table.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
