utter randomonium

Avatar: A fun film, sort of Pocahontas meets Ferngully meets The Matrix, with a dash of BattleTech thrown in for spice. The story is simplistic and familiar: Jake Sully is a Marine who is paralyzed from the waist down who gets the opportunity to join the Avatar program when his identical twin brother is killed. This program allows a human to mentally occupy a genetically-matched alien body so they can mingle with the native race of the planet Pandora. Pandora contains large deposits of a valuable ore called unobtainium (a name so lame it distracted me), and getting to this means displacing a bunch of natives.  So you have the pacifist scientists and the trigger-happy military dudes and the cold-hearted bureaucrats and the innocent natives who have a special connection with all living things. Jake, in his avatar form, befriends the alien chief’s daughter and suddenly finds his loyalties torn.  I think you see where this is going.

But you know, it was kind of nice to have such a standard storyline in the face of such intricate special effects. As so many have said, the CG is phenomenal. The aliens move realistically and have stunningly convincing facial expressions. The Pandoran landscape is nearly seamless, and it’s very easy to forget you’re watching a cartoon. Maybe I’m weird, but the effect I noticed most was Jake’s legs when he’s human. Since he’s supposed to be paralyzed, the muscles are completely atrophied. I’m sure this was done in post-production (as opposed to the actor letting his legs whither away in real life), but it was so believable that I still had to wonder.

I saw this film in 3D. It was good 3D – that is, it actually looked 3D rather than like a bunch of 2D planes moving in front of each other – but I’m not sure I needed it. They didn’t pull any of your standard tricks that make the audience flinch like something’s going to hit them in the face, and I think the film would have been just as entertaining without the audience looking like a sea of Max Headrooms (though that was amusing in itself). So in short: fun to watch, not too intellectually taxing, worth seeing in the theaters. I doubt I’d watch it again but my husband looks forward to the behind-the-scenes content on the DVD. Something tells me it won’t be too interesting, considering most of it will involve people sitting at computers, but I could be wrong.

In Her Shoes: I read the book some time ago and mostly enjoyed it, though I didn’t feel it was quite as tight as some of Weiner’s other novels. The movie removed the parts that bugged me about the book, such as the all-too-convenient flashbacks and the weird part about camping out at the Princeton library, while keeping most of the good stuff: the believable characters, the funny one-liners and exchanges, and the happy ending. Not a movie I’d necessarily want to watch again, but it was a nice way to spend a lazy Sunday afternoon.

The Twilight Saga: New Moon: As much as I giggled through Twilight, I full-on laughed for the entirety of New Moon. There was clearly a great effort to be as true to the book as possible, down to silly details like Jacob and Bella’s banter about their relative ages. This devotion to the source material does not do the plot any favors, of course. Bella treats Jacob abominably, and being the lovestruck teenager that he is, he just rolls over and takes it. Bella and Edward’s relationship has become more ardent but not any more believable. The audience is continually bashed over the head with Romeo & Juliet references. I suppose if I took the film at face value, with all its earnestly melodramatic angst, I would have thrown up my arms in disgust. However, I came in expecting an awesomely bad movie, and that’s exactly what I got.

Technically speaking, it’s a much better film than its predecessor. The CG wolves were both better and worse than I’d expected, occasionally impressing me with their convincing facial expressions but most of the time obviously not really there. The vampire sparkle effect was vastly improved over Twilight’s CG glitter lotion, which sadly only emphasized the silliness of the whole idea of sparkly vampires. The vampire make-up was better as well (though admittedly that’s not saying much): they appear to have learned a bit about blending at the jawline, but Edward really needs to ease up on the lipstick. The only truly terrible effect was the Edward hallucination, which came across alternately as creepy (full-body apparition Edward) and hilarious (floating head Edward) – but never convincing.

The acting skills of the principals haven’t improved much since Twilight. Kristen Stewart (Bella) continues to be twitchy and stuttery (though from watching interviews it seems this isn’t acting); Robert Pattinson (Edward) totally Shatnerizes most of his lines, most notably the very last one of the movie. Taylor Lautner is charming as Jacob and delivers his lines well, though he could use a couple more facial expressions to add to his repertoire. Luckily, the supporting cast is excellent almost without exception, and though they only have a couple of lines each, they really brighten the relatively few scenes that involve more people than the three main characters. The Volturi – the “vampire royalty” – were especially fun, if underused in favor of a prolonged fight scene in which Edward gets the crap kicked out of him. Aro in particular was awesome; I hope they film Breaking Dawn just so I can see him again. The Wolf Pack, on the other hand, were great fun as individuals, but whenever they appeared as a group I started having West Side Story flashbacks and expected them to start snapping their fingers menacingly.

In short: it’s awful and I love it and I have to see it again. I’m also looking forward to Eclipse next summer, for that’s when the Twilight Weirdness really kicks in, what with the imprinting and the newborn vampires and the disturbing back-stories and all. Should be good times.

Twilight: Whenever I read a book that has been made into a movie, regardless of how I felt about it, I immediately add the DVD to my Netflix queue. I like seeing other people’s takes on familiar characters, like seeing the same play with different casts. It’s a thing. However, it is rare that I see a movie so soon after finishing the book: in this case, about 24 hours.

This is not a good movie. It’s a decent adaptation, but definitely not something to watch cold. My only major adaptation complaint was the development of Bella and Edward’s relationship, which is more or less the core of the plot. In the book, it is very clear that they can’t stay away from each other. In the movie, Bella is minding her own business when Edward comes out of nowhere to say things like “I think it’d be better if we weren’t friends” or “You should stay away from me.” When suddenly she’s saying “don’t leave me” every third sentence, it feels kind of random.

My main complaint about the movie itself is the make-up. And as one who doesn’t even wear make-up herself, you know it’s got to be bad if I even notice it. In far too many scenes it is painfully obvious that the make-up artist forgot to apply anything to the ears and necks of the vampires. Even amateurs like me know it’s bad to have a distinct border along the jawline. Edward’s excessive amount of lipstick didn’t help matters either. (And I couldn’t help thinking of the Fug Girls’ comments on the poster, which were spot on.)

The acting wasn’t stellar either: Bella almost always looked pissed or bored, and Edward alternated between awkward and bland. (Having re-watched some of his Cedric Diggory scenes, I see the awkwardness is not new, though the blandness is. He could use lessons from Tatsuya Fujiwara on effective smoldering techniques.) But, to be fair, they didn’t exactly have the best source material to work from.

I did, however, appreciate the earlier introductions of Jacob Black and the evil vampires (sounds like a band name, now that I read it), and the inclusion of bits not in the book such as Bella’s comment to Edward that his mood swings are giving her whiplash, and Mike’s weird dance outside the diner. I spent a lot of time laughing at this film, at both the intentional and unintentional humor.

Since I plan on reading the rest of the books, I’ll most likely see the other movies as well. The trailers for the second one look promising; perhaps the change in directors will help. All in all, I agree with the critics: unless you’re a big fan of the Twilight universe, there is nothing worth watching here. But if you like Twilight, you’ll probably get a kick out of it.

(I don’t know why my Twilight reviews are so long. It kind of disturbs me.)

I’m currently reading The Good Earth by Pearl S. Buck. As with most books I read that have been translated to the big screen, I put the movie on my Netflix queue. However, having seen the trailer, I’m a little worried that the film will be unintentionally amusing. After all, the main characters, all of whom are Chinese, are played by a Ukrainian, a German, an Austrian, and a couple of guys from Ohio. Yes, yes, I know that the main characters were always played by white people no matter what, but looking at it from a modern standpoint is…well, just look at the makeup!

Anyway. I’m enjoying the book now that it’s starting to pick up (the first half dozen chapters or so were pretty slow); as the movie claims to “be” the book, perhaps it’ll be good enough that I’ll forget the painfully non-Asian actors in cast of all-Asian characters. We’ll see.

Lady Audley’s Secret: I often seek out film versions of books I’ve read, so when I discovered this TV movie was available on Netflix I immediately added it to our queue. First off, I’d like to say that this movie was gorgeous. The sets, props, and costumes were simply breathtaking. Unfortunately, it looks like the budget all went towards the visuals instead of hiring a good screenwriter and decent director. The acting is wooden, the dialogue silly, the blocking stilted. The changes from the book were unnecessary and didn’t add anything to the story whatsoever. In fact, I’m not entirely sure I would have been able to follow much of what was going on had I not read the book first. In short, don’t bother with this film. If you’d like a good costume drama, try Shakespeare in Love.

The Devil Wears Prada: I read the book a little while ago but wasn’t all that impressed with it. The movie, however, was great. They changed a lot of the story, including the climax, but all for the better. Anne Hathaway was lovely and believable as girl-next-door-turned-couture-obsessed-model Andy Sachs, and of course Meryl Streep was deliciously cold as Miranda Priestly. This isn’t the sort of movie I’d want to watch over and over again, but it’s a funny flick for a Saturday night at home. Even my husband liked it, and he usually dismisses anything that smells even a vaguely like a chick flick. (Which this isn’t, even with a female main character and all its talk about fashion.) I know this is sacrilege in some circles, but I would definitely recommend the movie over the book.

The Tin Drum: Having recently read the book, I was curious to see the movie, especially since it was similarly heaped with critical acclaim. I was expecting it to be just as strange as the book, and was certainly not disappointed. However, it ended only about two thirds of the way through the story, and included a large number of scenes and characters without any explanation. In short, had I not read the book I would have been completely and utterly lost. I liked it, but I simply cannot recommend it to anyone else. Save yourself the headache of confusion (and perhaps shock) and skip this one.

Hackers: It’s like 1995 sneezed and they made a movie out of it. The plot, such as it is, is about a band of teenage computer hackers who trip over catchy buzzwords and outdated (or neverdated) slang while fighting the big evil hacker as the fates of millions hang in the balance. Or something. It doesn’t really matter. There’s plenty wrong with this movie, not least of which being the bizarre graphical representation of hacking that comes closer to a rave party screensaver than anything remotely resembling an actual operating system, but there’s also so much right. Angelina Jolie as the butch-sexy chick hacker. Matthew Lillard as the hippy weirdo hacker. Penn Jillette as the geeky computer security officer. Marc Anthony as the wannabe hipster cop. Rollerblades and swap meets and 28.8 modems and grunge. It’s silly and often unintentionally humorous, but if you want the mid-90s to the nth degree, this is the movie for you.

Freaks: This brief 1932 film is about the backstage lives of a group of sideshow performers. The story mostly revolves around the romance between the “normal” Cleopatra and Hans the little person, which reveals the somewhat scary prejudices and alliances among the various performers. It’s definitely a film you won’t soon forget. The acting, however, isn’t all that great and the dialogue is often downright horrible. I think what makes this movie so memorable (and so controversial) is that all the “freaks” are 100% bonafide sideshow performers. There are pinheads and human worms and bird girls and lots more besides. No make-up or special effects here. Perhaps more telling than the movie itself is the hour-long documentary included on the DVD, which talks about the performers’ real lives and careers both before and after this movie was made. Most of all, this DVD raises an uncomfortable question: how exploitative is it really when these people have consciously made the choice to make money by being stared at?