Up in the Air: Kind of up in the air

I'll begin with saying that this was a strange film. However, you would expect something strange from Jason Reitman, director of Juno and Thank You For Smoking. Reitman's off-kilter humour and flair for muted drama is the touch which keeps what should be a fairly mediocre premise from running dry. Everything from the cinematography down to the costume design (and the actors are there in between) has the Reitman touch.
This film was not quite another Juno or Thank You For Smoking, because the premise is somewhat limited, even to an otherwise stellar combination of director, actors and writers.

George Clooney leads the wonderful cast as Ryan Bingham with, I'll admit, what has become a "George Clooney" performance, which would be a bad thing, if George Clooney still weren't so damn good. He can afford now to essentially play himself, but "himself" is still a wonderful performance, so I'm not one to crow about it. His aptly-named co-worker Natalie Keener is played by relative newcomer Anna Kendrick, who should act in more films like this one to get out of her somewhat unfortunate casting in the "Twilight saga". Her performance is flawless, the perfect balance between self-assurance and vulnerability characteristic of her character's position in life as well as her young age, a difficult balance for any actress.
The key performance in this movie is hers, because make no mistake, Clooney is not the MAIN character, he is simply a very prominent one. Her holding her own among veterans like Clooney and his screen pair Vera Farmiga, is as admirable as her character's attempt to play ball with their characters. I expect, with a little good luck, to see a lot from this young face.
Where the film is lacking any kind of special spark is in the main premise of the film. The novelty of the life that Ryan Bingham leads is played up in the trailer to the point where it is barely noted while watching the film. This surreal suitcase existence is the clincher in our incredulity which is supposed to carry us through the film in the hopes that this fellow will see the light and come to his sense. The fact is that we are as comfortable with the concept as HE is before we even start the film; as a result we want to keep him where he is and begin to resent what he resents, like what he likes, and even partially envy his lifestyle. The climax makes this sentiment very awkward, as he is temporarily converted and desires the stability of a life, a relationship and family. We sit there, uncomfortable and desirous of a return to the "normal" life of endless plane rides and awfulness of firing dozens of employees every week. I don't know if this is a good thing or not, because that's what we find Mr.Bingham gets, his old life back. Of course with this kind of urban folk tale, which is what this movie is, "getting what you want" MUST be bittersweet. This is why I maintain our Ms.Keener is really the star of the film, as she is the only character who seems to gain anything by way of happiness or fulfillment. Perhaps this is a harbinger of youth being capable of learning from their mistakes? Let us hope so.
Individual scenes in this film, a handful scattered throughout, seem to be miniature homages to cinematic comedy of years gone by. Anna Kendrick's wonderful "what I need/want in a man" speech, countered by Vera Farmiga's "what you end up wanting in a man, sort of" is very reminiscent of Nora Ephron, writer of When Harry Met Sally, who was one of the first people to write into film the true differences between not only Men and Women, but Young and Old men and women.
Another classic scene, which is worth the price of admission, was J.K.Simmons' glorious cameo (a requirement of any Jason Reitman film apparently, in any case a welcome one). While his appearance ran the risk of undercutting the otherwise poignant scene, it did no such thing. In fact, our knowledge of the actor accelerated our deepest regrets for his current situation.

This film, in its entirety, was very enjoyable, truly a good movie. However, with the limited and off-center concept of the main plot restrains it from the kind of acclaim it might otherwise garner. It is entertaining and an excellent choice, but don't expect to be in awe as with other such films by Jason Reitman, who falls just short of his usual fantastic performance as director. No worries, Mr.Reitman, if you were consistently as successful as some, you would turn into James Cameron, and nobody wants that!

Until next week,

Liz

Sherlock Holmes: A Taste of Sensation

Like a true fan of Conan Doyle, I was horrified when the Sherlock Holmes trailer began to run. Explosions? Nudity? What were they writing about here? What bastard had scrambled together this catastrophe?

Then the unthinkable happened: I laughed.
By the end of the trailer I was sold hook, line and sinker for this film. I saw it on December 26, not thirty hours after it had been released.
My first thought when the credits began to roll was "No one but me will like this film." I cannot explain this sentiment beyond having a certain understanding of what people expected from this film as opposed to what they got. I believe that I expected exactly what I got from this film, but that I am one of few.
Indeed the problems that face it are numerous: apparent ignorance of historical accuracy as well as of the literary canon, sensationalizing of a literary oeuvre, and, the worst crime of all, an element of romance.
How will this film overcome these harsh accusations?

I will not engage these problems in any way other than to dismiss them altogether. There ARE deviances from the canon, and the script is sensationalized, but if you object to them there is no reason that will sway you. Therefore I digress with only one defence, which is essential to anyone's understanding of the spirit of the film:
Arthur Conan Doyle wrote his stories as popular fiction, fiction that was accessible to, and enjoyed by everyone. In this way it was not considered "high" literature. It is comparable to action and adventure movies of today. Are we beginning to see my point? Sherlock Holmes has become a folk hero of literature, but one accessed by few in its original form which, compared to modern literature, can be considered dry or long-winded. The sensational modernization of this character, I believe, is more a testament to its original intent, which was only to entertain. 

Robert Downey Jr.'s stunning portrayal of Holmes is, in its way, unprecedented. While Jeremy Brett remains my favourite when consulting accuracy to the written canon, Downey preserves the spirit that is transcends the modernized sentiment of the film. His arrogance, wit and unconventional madness is the centrepiece that makes the film marvellous. Indeed all of the characters whose origins are within Conan Doyle's stories are portrayed with a modern edge which becomes them excellently. With that in mind, it would surprise most to learn that very little was added to these characters to make them modern entertainers. Even the brazen Irene Adler was not embellished much at all, as she is the only woman to gain Holmes' esteem.

I have heard some objection to the film's apparent fixation with the occult, which is again, more a testament to Conan Doyle than most would recognize. When not writing Holmes' adventures, Doyle was writing books on the subject of parapsychology, that is to say, spirits, seances, automatic writing and other communication with the dead. Doyle was obsessed with the supernatural and in fact his reputation was decidedly ruined later in his career by his stalwart belief in the Cottingley Fairies Photographs, which were later proved to be faked.
In any case, the supernatural elements are in fact proven false by all accounts and therefore these is no reason to cry about it, folks.

I do believe I liked everything about this movie. I loved the elaborately constructed sets. I loved the hysterical dialogue that seems to have been created by a modge-podge collection of writers, only a few of them with more than one Hollywood film under their belt. I loved the courageous but underrated cinematography. I loved the not-so-subtle hint at a sequel which has us all guessing, except that we aren't. I even love that despite the mixed reviews, lack-lustre buzz and very modest box office earnings, this little film is powering through to be still in theatres.

I admit when it comes to films I liked, I am positively boring. I'll hit you with some more negative reviews next week.

Until then...

Liz

Avatar: Bigger than Titanic (but with less calories)

 

With the overwhelming popularity and success that James Cameron's new film Avatar has garnered, it seemed only right to air my views, since no one else seems to be holding back. I will warn fans of the Avatar film that I am not amongst you. This may shock some, but it needs to be said. There are other gainsayers; I am not alone, though I am still in a strict minority. How can I begin to defend this wretched position of conscientious objector which so many seem to despise?

Let us start with the man himself. James Cameron. I blame James Cameron for a good deal with what is wrong with Hollywood films in our day and age. It is because he can, and probably does, OWN most of it. It is true, James Cameron makes big movies, they make lots of money, and because he seems to put himself in charge of almost every department, he also gets most of the credit. The things he can't actually do himself are pawned off to the same handful of people who he seems capable of deigning with a portion of his credit. This is credit that is not even well-deserved. Cameron's hubris has kept him from understanding that he is a terrible writer and most of what his production and directorial jobs entail is saying "bigger. more expensive. extra big booms. BOOM, man! you understand me? BIG BANGING BOOM!"
Which can get boring if you don't enjoy things being blown literally out of proportion on the screen. We have to remember also that the few good movies we remember James Cameron doing tend to overshadow the massive number of awful movies he has had an equal part in.
To name a few: True Lies, Rambo: First Blood part II, Terminator 2 and 3, Dark Angel, The Sarah Connor Chronicles, Terminator: Dawn of Fate, and my personal favourite Solaris.

That is a list of some of the funniest Bad movies and TV shows I have every seen. And he is credited in a number of them as writer, director AND producer.

Leaving aside the man for a moment, let us have a look at the writing: We'll first have a look at the basic plot, courtesy of my friend, the internet.

This is only a single element of my objection to the plot structure. Not only is it a shameless re-hashing of an ancient plot, but it plays up every cultural stereotype so as to gain our politically correct sympathies.
The villain is contained in the dual antagonism of Corporate AMERICA Earthlings (sorry, that's some Tourrets thing I have) and a psychotic and typical General PATTON Quaritch (oops, there it goes again!). Together they are in search of the valuable mineral called -this never ceases to crack me up- Unobtainium. UN - Obtain - ium. You get it? Because it is unobtainable? *Nudge Nudge*. This mineral is so vaguely established that we are not even told its uses or why the ONLY deposit of it of any value is directly under the tree that is sacred to the native people.
And speaking of the Native people - I could not help but notice every actor (save one) of the Native Peoples of Pandora are African-American, speaking in an accent that recalls the African continent (where none of the actors were born, these are constructed accents). Are we being maybe TOO subtle, James Cameron? Why don't you just toss some beasts reminiscent of the African jungles in there? Oh wait...

Even the individual typecasting was horrific:
Newbie scientist: Smart but inept and less attractive than main character.
Single hispanic actor: female and butch, and rogue (didn't I see her in Resident Evil? What's she doing in the future?)
Main Character: capable of bypassing standard procedure and is more adept in things the trained scientists have been working on for years.

Militant villain: Looking for a fight, a war, and a win despite the lack of need, encouragement, or likelihood of survival. Always smoking a cigar and drinking what is presumably whiskey with a touch of coffee.

James Cameron: I am BORED.

Now, to give the film a chance, everyone declares that while the plot is specious at best, the visual experience is the saving grace and is in fact, revolutionizing the way we watch films.
The only difference between Avatar and other films of its visual calibre is that Avatar was funded by billionaires. The estimated budget before marketing and promotion has been reported as anywhere between 200-300$ million. I was not taken away by the visual effects. They were perfectly equal to the funding in most ways, and that is as much as I can say. I am irritated constantly by 3D and in fact the only revolution for ME watching this film was the headache I got from wearing the ridiculous 3D glasses.

The digital effects captured me in only one respect: the melding of live actors and their animated characters was unprecedented. Although a seven-foot blue Sigourney Weaver still haunts my dreams, it was a certain success of the film. In other ways the animation does not bypass the capabilities that any other studio possesses. There was no method that was invented, nor anything truly revolutionized. It was simply a much more expensive film than one usually sees.

My last words to James Cameron: Quit your job. You're rich enough to retire and pay ample settlements on your inevitable fifth divorce. 

Lots of love.