"Avatar"
Richard's Review: 4 1/2 stars
In the gap between James "King of the World" Cameron's last theatrical feature, "Titanic," and his new film, "Avatar" (in theatres this weekend) Clint Eastwood directed 11 movies, Michael Bay made six and even Uwe Boll, a director so reviled there is an online petition to prevent him from making any more films, has made 15 in the time it took Cameron to make just one. But it's quite a movie.
"Avatar," based on an original idea by Cameron, is set in the 22nd century on a small planet called Pandora. Under the lush terra firma is a valuable mineral much sought after by the Avatar program--a collaboration between industry and military. Since the climate and atmosphere aren't hospitable to humans a substitute for homosapien invaders is required. That would be living, breathing avatars of the Pandorian natives, controlled by a human "driver" through a high tech link-up that connects the driver's mind to their Avatar body.
The 10-foot-tall, blue skinned natives, called the Na'vi -- although the humans dismissively call them "blue monkeys" -- are deeply connected to their planet, sharing a connection with the land and all its creatures that defies human comprehension. Only one man comes close to understanding the Na'vi. He's Jake Sully (Sam Worthington) a former marine who lost the use of his legs in combat. Brought on board the Avatar program he is initially used as a mole to infiltrate a Na'vi community to glean information that will make the harvesting of minerals easier, but what begins as simply completing his mission and using his legs again through the avatar soon becomes something else. He learns to love not only the Na'vi people, but one Na'vi in particular, Neytiri (Zoe Saldana).
First let's dispel some myths. 1.) You don't need to take Gravol with you to the movie theatre. There were rumors on the net that "Avatar's" mix of hand held camera and 3-D was literally stomach turning. Not true. 2.) It's not "Dances with Wolves in Space" or "Ferngully" with aliens. 3.) Sight unseen people were calling it Cameron's Folly, a three hour waste of film and money (a reported $300 million). Not true. 4.) "The Na'vi are the new Jar Jar Binks," bloggers screamed! Also not true.
With "Avatar" Cameron has made a sprawling epic that lives up to the hype. It is something completely new, a movie that is not a sequel, a remake or based on an existing novel; a film that sprung from Cameron's imagination and exists on its own plane. Brett Ratner, Michael Bay and all other Hollywood hacks, hang your heads in shame.
Cameron starts from scratch creating a whole new world with language, customs, religion and crazy creatures but never forgets that this is an action movie and not an anthological study. To that he adds allusions to the Iraq war, shock and awe policies and the Native American genocide all bundled up in one giant sci fi romance action flick.
It's not all perfect, the dialogue is frequently 1980's-action-movie lame, filled with clich�s; there are logic lapses and Saldana's character shifts from Ripley (remember "Alien"?) to damsel in distress in the blink of an eye, but the film's achievements outweigh any of these misgivings.
Despite what the early word on the movie may have been Cameron--who at this rate won't make another film until 2221--makes the audience feel compassion for obviously computer enhanced giant blue creatures, keep our interest for almost three hours and presents a dazzling climax that'll leave you slack jawed.
"The Young Victoria"
Richard's Review: 4 stars
Despite being shot by soft candle light for a glowing historical feel, "The Young Victoria" isn't "Masterpiece Theatre." Accents and petticoats aside, this is a modern movie, with a modern sensibility, that mixes history, politics, romance, castle etiquette and backroom dealing into one frilly, appealing package.
Emily "Devil Wears Prada" Blunt is Queen Victoria, although when we first meet her she is just shy of coming of age to be Queen. She is a coddled young woman bound by the rules and manipulations of her mother the Duchess of Kent (Miranda Richardson) and her advisor Sir John Conroy ("RocknRolla's" Mark Strong). Defying their wishes to make them co-Regents and share the throne, she becomes Queen in June 1837. She is a young woman enjoying the first blushes of freedom following years of repression but before she can be an effective leader, however, she must first learn the inner workings of the court, deal with a royal power-struggle and figure out her feelings for her first cousin, Prince Albert (Rupert Friend).
"The Young Victoria" has much in common with recent costume dramas like "Bleak House" and "Miss Potter." There is sumptuous production value, well appointed period details and enough powdered wigs to cover a hundred bald heads, but it also has something the others don't--Emily Blunt.
Blunt has received good notices for her work since her breakout in "The Devil Wears Prada," but "The Young Victoria" may be the movie that really puts her on the map. She has shown her range before in everything from straight ahead roles in "Charlie Wilson's War" and "Dan in Real Life" to the quirkier "Sunshine Cleaning," but never before has she carried an entire movie.
She creates a lovely human portrait of a woman often thought of as stuffy and a bit too stiff upper lipped. Her Victoria is coming of age in a difficult time, but someone who embraces the future; learning from the past but looking forward. It's a strong performance that carries the whole movie.
Rupert Friend also impresses after his dismal showing in "Ch�ri" earlier this year. Ditto Mark Strong as the narcissistic Sir John Conroy. He follows his noteworthy work in "Body of Lies" with a wonderfully smarmy performance here.
"The Young Victoria" isn't your father's--or your mother's or grand parent's--costume drama. It's a vital and romantic story that feels up to date even though the clothes and mannerisms are of another age.
"Did You Hear About The Morgans?"
Richard's Review: 0 stars
Did you hear about the new predictable, laugh-free rom com from Hugh Grant and Sarah Jessica Parker? It's called "Did You Hear About the Morgans?" and is the latest entry in a new genre of films--the Seatbelt Movie. They are films so unappealing, so without merit theatre seats should come equipped with a restraining device to keep audiences from walking out and demanding their money back.
Grant and Parker are Paul and Meryl Morgan, Manhattanites with money, uptight assistants (Elisabeth Moss and Jesse Liebman) and a bad marriage. Three months previous he cheated, they separated and he has been desperately trying to win her back ever since. One night they witness a murder and became the target of a hired killer. For their safety they are placed in the Witness Protection Program and relocated to flyover territory in Ray, Wyoming, a one horse town in the Rockies. Under the watchful eye of local sheriff Clay Wheeler (Sam Elliott) and his Annie Oakley wannabe wife (Mary Steenburgen), the city folks rethink their relationship.
Movies like "Did You Hear About the Morgans?" raise the question: When you know how the movie is going to end before it even starts, do you have to stay until the end credits roll? The answer, for me anyway, is yes, of course. I'm professionally obligated to sit through every minute of this tripe (I Watch Bad Movies So You Don't Have To, remember?) but be warned there is a strong sense of d�j� vu that runs throughout this movie. There's nothing here that we haven't seen before and better.
Maybe ten years ago "Did You Hear About the Morgans?" might have worked with the same cast but now it feels as stale as Grant's awkward Englishman routine and SJP's dyed-in-the-wool New Yorker schtick. Steenburgen's character seems to understand this. At one point she says, "I see you two laughing at your little inside New York City jokes. I don't find them funny."
Amen to that. Is there an older gag than the inevitable city girl milks a cow scene? Or the "hilarious" culture clash between the city slickers and the country rubes? "Do you hunt?" "Only for bargains!" "Green Acres" did jokes like these on television 40 years ago, and they were getting old then.
Grant and Parker are masters with this kind of material, both having found fame playing slight variations on Paul and Meryl, but here neither of them seem to be trying very hard. Elliott and Steenburgen fare a bit better than the leads and Wilford Brimley is perfectly cast as a cranky Republican cafe owner but poor Elizabeth Moss, so good on "Mad Men" is absolutely wasted in a thankless role.
Despite the legacy of its stars "Did You Hear About the Morgans?" is nothing more than a pale imitation of their best work.
