REVOLVER

2005
Directed by Guy Ritchie
Written by Guy Ritchie and Luc Besson
Produced by Virginie Silla
Europa Corp.

Remember what I said about Quentin Tarantino coating his movies with stylized bullshit way back in yesteryear? Well picture that but the movie has no idea where the fuck it's going; mix some flashy cinematography and Jason Statham with it and you've got Revolver. Guy Ritchie has been slipping down this gravitating downward spiral these past few years. Sherlock Holmes is his newest addition to his filmography and looks like it was made in the same vein as League of Extraordinary Gentlemen. Going off topic for a moment, I know making preconceived notions about a movie before seeing it isn't exactly very open-minded of me. However until Mr. Ritchie shows me hard evidence he's not desperate then I'm assuming it's shit until proven otherwise... or I actually see it and fulfill my own prophecy.

Before Mr. Ritchie's venture into high concept filmmaking there was Revolver; a story about a... well it's not very clear as to what he is, which is the first problem of many. Jake Greene (Jason Statham) is apparently many things; a card-shark, gambler, con man, chess player and depending on how you interpret this movie, certifiably bonkers. What you do know is that he has just been released from prison and wants to be paid back by Dorothy Macha, a high profile casino owner played by Henry Hill- I mean Ray Liotta. The way he's escorted into the casino, I suspected Jake Greene to be a low profile syndicate boss but apparently he just made friends with some employees at the Goon Factory.

What this movie fails to do is explain neither the plot and characters nor the how and why coherently. It drags you through an hour of heavy handed smooth talk and because next to nothing is explained it comes out as mindless dribble. It wouldn't be so bad except that in order to watch and enjoy the movie it helps to know what it's about. Every time we see a seemingly key plot point, it turns around and points us in a different direction... with it's dick. For example, right after Jake Greene is diagnosed with a rare blood disease it mysteriously disappears three days later. So we're playing that game are we? Forgive me, I wasn't aware we were watching a movie carrying twice the miracle capacity as My Sister's Keeper. This is one of the most angering moments I have with this movie; teasing you about which way the story leads and then later telling you that everything's changed. All the while I'm trying to pay attention to the rest of the story I'm getting an aneurysm just from trying to figure out this web of lies and thinking about the shameless plot twists.

I want to mention this now so that you'll understand the rest of my frustrations later. I don't understand the two characters, Zach and Avi (Vincent Pastore and Andre Benjamin) and what I mean is I don't understand what this movie is trying to do with them. I get that they're products of Jake Greene's insanity... well wait a minute, are they or aren't they? There are times when you see them interacting with other characters like that Doreen person (Anjela Lauren Davis). Then there are times when it seems like only Jake can see them. So if they are really personalities conjured by Jack's subconscious, why the fuck do other characters act like they're real people? And please explain to me how they own a game house and have reputations as loan sharks if that's the case? It's like they're co-existing on two different realities and the movie keeps breaking it's own rules just to cater to them. At least Fight Club made an attempt to cover up their inconsistencies (Dear Christ, I never thought I'd ever make a reference to that movie in a positive light). I just don't know how to interpret them because the movie hasn't made up it's own mind either. It's like if FDA tells you that beer is bad because it gives you cancer, shrinks your balls and keeps you going to the unemployment line. Then they change their minds later and say it only makes your balls shrink and then after the whole fiasco you finding they were rip roaring drunk when they told you.

These two anomalies string Jack along their excursions, loaning out his money to their clients and in their downtime, ripping off Macha and poising him against an Asian crime syndicate in a mob war. Translating this from Guy Ritchie's third dimension, this means that Jack Greene is doing all of this by himself with some help from that Doreen person. Another side tangent: who the fuck is she anyway and how is she so desperate for money that she works for a man who refers to himself as three people? You'd think she would have called the men in white coats to give him a jacket that makes him hug himself by now. I apologize to cycle back around this topic again but you can't avoid talking about any other faults without mentioning it. If Zach and Avi aren't real, why do other people see them and recognize them as two separate individuals? I hate to use this reference again but, Fight Club has a better cover-up. Whenever Tyler Durdan speaks it's really Edward Norton so it can be argued that when he talks to himself no one else really acknowledges whether they are two separate people or just one person. In Revolver it's implicated that both Zach and Avi are personalities created by Jake but there many occasions where they are seen and acknowledged as three separate entities. It's so dumbfounding and disjointing, it's like if Rod Serling ate mushrooms and then wrote an episode of the Twlight Zone that lasted 2 nauseating hours.

Another jarring inconsistency is how atrocious the sequencing is. I had to watch it a second time through just to understand what happened and when. Apparently after Jake was released from prison, it doesn't mention until an hour later that at least three months had passed until we see him con Macha out of his money. Thanks again for that bone, Mr. Ritchie. The way the opening flows you're given the impression that he goes directly to Macha's casino right when he's released from prison. The way the characters talk, their dialogue implicates he just got out a short while ago, except from one line from Macha, which at this point could be interpreted either way. Mr. Ritchie put a lot of effort into making you work to figure out the timeline to this trailing clusterfuck. I don't know whether his goal was to make the film equivalent of a Chinese Tavern puzzle but it sure succeeded in making me less than apathetic then I was from the start.

One positive note I will give Revolver is the look. Here's where even more stylization comes in and all in all, it doesn't do anything too drastic (except for that misplaced animation interlude but I digress). It exercises a variety of different colors, lighting and shots with many intimate close ups, especially on the chess pieces and other props. It creates the one dynamic Revolver has going for it; Emphasizing the nonchalant atmosphere using very dramatic lighting when appropriate and it mixes very well with the sound and foley effects. For the most part, the cinematography compliments the movie and since it's a shameful epileptic seizure of a story it fits right in.

One final gripe I will proceed to bitch about (because I can so either fuck off or keep reading) is one specific plot hole that skewers the whole movie. After Jake discovers he has his placebo blood disease, Avi and Zach give him the "only choice he has" apparently, which is to give them all his money and do whatever they say. My question here is why does Jake agree to comply? Even if there is a death warrant on him, he thinks he's dead in three days. Why give it to them when he waste it all on blow and a tittie bar? What makes their option the only option? It's either have fun and die in three days or less or give all my money away to help out two loan sharks and die in three days or less. It's like being trapped in a room with a bomb that will imminently go off and choosing between one last fuck with your girlfriend or watching her get Eiffel Towered by two pornstars before it detonates.

Nothing stays simple because of this movie's desperate attempts to be one of the cool kids. It tries too hard to impress and in the end it just trails off into it's own ego. Half the time you'll be translating or decrypting the story like you're playing Sudoku but in binary. Every plot point that is established becomes irrelevant later because a new twist is revealed every 20 minutes. I don't know how Mr. Ritchie thought this was a good idea. I feel like this started as something promising and then he just stopped trying. So instead of writing on his own he loaded a bunch of scenarios into a blender and that was his idea of finalizing. I keep hearing from people that this is typical Guy Ritchie. You watch Snatch or Lock Stock and Two Smoking Barrels and tell me that the stories are as convoluted and jumbled as this movie, you obtuse dolt.

TRANSFORMERS: REVENGE OF THE FALLEN

2009
Directed by Michael Bay
Written by Ehren Kruger
Produced by Ian Bryce
Paramount Pictures

Ok people...

Once again Michael Bay attempts to awww and wow us with his infamous action sequences and detailed special effects. However, Revenge of the Fallen falls farther away from the entertainment spectrum than the first one did. Granted this is a film with Mr. Bay's name on and should be judged accordingly. That being said, even with his timeless quota of being "awesome" there has to be a certain level of coherency and consistency in order for the entertainment value to remain as the dominating trait in his films. Revenge of the Fallen demonstrates this quality very poorly. Again we are dealing with a movie that dwells within a reality involving large transforming extraterrestrial robots but I continue to protest a sense of coherency within it's own world. To begin with there are a lot of new twists, elements and plot devices that appear in this movie very conveniently. Although like slender women in slutty clothing this is not uncommonly apparent in Bay's filmography. My concern peaks when I repeatedly ask questions such as "Why didn't they just do this?" or "Was that really necessary?” and “Did I actually pay to see this?"

One example that I questioned frequently through out the movie was the All-Spark shard that Sam (Shia LeBoeuff) discovers in his old sweater. It still contains the power to transform ordinary machines into little transformers that want to snip your balls off and turn them into a small beanbag chair. So when Optimus Prime (Peter Cullen) gets killed, why couldn't they just use the all spark shard to revive him if it still has its power? Also there's the scene where Sam, Mikela (Megan Fox), Simmons (John Tuturro) and... that agitating youth who reminds me of Chris Carter if he did cocaine, (Rammond Rodriguez) go speak to Jetfire. If he's still alive why DID they need the shard to revive him? Why couldn't he transform on his own? They don't explain anything as simple as that. It's both too convenient and inconvenient to make sense even by Michael Bay's standards.

By the way, I'm still wondering why the chose to have Mr. Spitz (annoying Chris Carter Neanderthal) ride along in this adventure. I don't think there was another character in another Bay film that made me want to heave a refrigerator at my own Dad because he wanted me to see this movie with him. He does nothing but bitch and moan the entire time and they didn't even work him in as competition with Mikela. Spitz is just another useless, frustrating character. He’s he type of person that warrants putting a warning screen before the intro credits saying that this movie causes high blood pressure and anger management. He actually made Shia bearable to watch, though whether that was his true purpose is unknown.

To comment on the transformers themselves... well aside from Optimus Prime, Bumblebtard and those two fuckball twin robots I don't really have much to say on the others because they barely have any screen time. Ironhide, Ratchet, they're only on screen for a matter of about 20 minutes before they go off doing heroic roboty things offscreen. There is only a single sentence introducing the new autobots and aside from Wheelie and Skids you barely see any of them either. Aside from that what was the deal with those two fuckhead twin robots anyway? They did the same thing they did with Jazz in the first Transformers; they reduced them to a cultural stereotype only this time to be more of two very perturbing cretins.

Going back to my frequently asked questions, there's the Matrix. This has to be the cheesiest stunt Bay has ever pulled in any movie and this is a man who referenced the American Revolution in The Rock. Sam gets shot by Megatron and dies. In... some kind of dream sequence, the other Primes confront him telling him he's "earned" the Matrix whereby Sam wakes up with it fully restored, ready to revive Optimus. Holy Fuckball. Once more we are visited by extreme convenience in order for our heroes to finish their quest in ways that seem unrealistic even in the world of Transformers. I don't understand it. There's never been this type of mysticism or fantastical magic involved in Transformers. Now it decides to throw us this curveball from Hogwarts, expects us to accept it and move on. Yes, I understand; it's Michael Bay, it's alien robots but it still manages to goes too far. It goes beyond it's own sense of reality. I just can't stomach the fact that they went to one of the lowest common denominators of copouts and expect me not to call bullshit.

On the technical side this movie was... ugh. Dear God. There's actually a scene where Sam says "Megan" instead of Mikela and they kept it in the final cut. More legitimately, there's so much wrong with continuity it's worse than the first one. Again we find ourselves sifting through fast-cutting action sequences that keep us guessing who's fighting who. Also there is a scene where Simmons seems to travel from Cairo to Jordon and it takes him mere minutes to get there... Oh come on, this movie isn't even trying anymore! Jordon is near 500 MILES away from Cairo with Isreal in between them no less. That's just absurd!

You know, I do enjoy a Bay movie when it deserves praise; Bad Boys II, The Rock and so on. I just can't find the entertainment when there's so much wrong with the Revenge of the Fallen that it confuses and annoys me rather than keeps me excited. On top of everything, the scene I couldn't wait for that debuted in the trailer (When Demolisher completely skull-fucks that highway in Shanghai) was seen a minute into the movie and then it turned out the rest of the movie was all of the above. Don't know what lies ahead for future installments of this series (and there will be) and I couldn't be more apathetic. If my dad has any more interest in seeing that one he's going to be surprised when he sees the newest version of Maytag flying at him through a window.

QUANTUM OF SOLACE

2008
Directed by Marc Forster
Written by Paul Haggis
Produced by Barbara Broccoli
MGM

Those who are esteemed fans of the new and improved Casino Royale are probably disappointed with the new, agonizing installment of Quantum of Solace. It has all the charm of Hannibal Lector working at Arby's with a plot so nauseating you might as well get some old CIA reports and drink ipecac while you read them. From what I've noticed most people have complained that this movie didn't live up to certain expectations, which are the wrong reasons for compliant in this case. I'll explain…

The majority of arguments that I've heard state that the filmmakers didn't reintroduce any of the old, classic aspects of the traditional Bond film such as Q or the gadgets, which is an overtly weak argument for debating the quality of the new Bond films.

Here's what was really wrong with Quantum of Solace: Everything else.

The story was probably one of the worst, if not the worst plot, in the history of Bond films and this is coming from a franchise that hid an evil organization with plans of world domination in a volcano. Bond is stuffed in action sequences (some of which are unmotivated) but when the action halts you find yourself stumbling through plot building reconnaissance scenes that lead you in three different directions. The road not traveled leads to General Medrano (Joaquin Cosio), the road preferred not traveled goes to Dominic Greene (Mathieu Amalric) and the one the audience becomes stranded in leads with James Bond (Daniel Craig) and Camille (Olga Kurlenko) trading awkward glances with fragments of conversation in the desert and an underground river. The story becomes so convoluted with stakes that nobody gives a fuck about. You have to realize the movie in a nutshell is about Bond trying to save the water supply of Bolivia... It raises questions.

People are still bitching "Why wasn't Q in it?" and I keep answering this question with another question: "What does it fucking matter?" The first one did quite well without him and the only reason people are annoyed is that it diverted from the normal quota of the traditional Bond film. If the series were a reboot to the character why would you keep the same repetitive formula? Aside from M and Bond, the Bond-girl was weakly developed into the story. She wasn't a key character, she didn't do anything important to the plot, she was just there as carry-on baggage... Much like all the other old-school Bond films minus actually fucking James Bond (which everyone was pissed about also). I was hoping they'd develop Felix into a more concrete character for the series, fat chance. Rene was picked up and suddenly killed off as though he served a better purpose to do so. None of the co-casting characters seems to matter much since we either see so little of them or they die off like side scrolling ducks at a carnival game.

Before I dwell into the agonizing backstory of this ingenious individual I'd like state for the record that this guy single-handedly has the worst name for any Bond-villain that has ever existed. Now as for his place in the movie… Dominic Green is the head of an environmental corporation, which is really a front for funding terrorist activities. Subtle. He is using his resources and power to steal the public water supply... of Bolivia... Are you. Fucking. Serious? By default he is one of the worst villains of any movie ever. That fatass General Medrano barely does anything and his criminal activities have little effect on the story and are mostly implied offscreen.

How did they go from Casino Royale to this? Not even the homage to Goldfinger was impressive. The only thing that is barely worth mentioning are the action sequences though they don't do much to save it from it's treachery. Unless you think useless action sequences mixed with a boring, implausible plot make Quantum of Solace a good movie then be my guest.

INGLOURIOUS BASTERDS

2009
Written and Directed by Quentin Tarantino
Produced by Lawrence Bender
The Weinstein Company

For the record I never really liked Tarantino or the majority of his filmography, mainly because he's more pretentious than me. The one film I do like that he's done in the past is Reservoir Dogs and even that comes with a bit of an acquired taste. His films that are actually decent demonstrate a fair amount of entertainment mixed with stylized ego that seem to have been ejaculated into various segments of the movie. Inglourious Basterds is no different from this characteristic with the exception that it's actually good and good enough where I could stand to watch it and not write a longwinded, raging... ignore the second half of that last sentence.

There are a few reasons that Inglourious Basterds fairs better than not and two of those reasons are Brad Pitt and Christophe Waltz. I'm serious; I've so rarely seen such a spectacular dynamic and contrast between two characters, especially when the first time they meet is the climax. For those of you who believe that Tyler Durden is still Pitt's best role: please go teabag a blender. Aldo Raine is the one of the most badass characters to be seen in a movie ever since Bruce Campbell's chin... Sorry got lost there for a moment there but really, Pitt does an utterly fantastic job as Aldo the Apache and if there is one credible trait I give to Mr. Tarantino it is the ability to direct characters... almost as much as how shitty he writes the dialogue.

The first scene is, by and far, the best scene in the entire film. I would say more specifically that it's the best dialogue driven scene but every fucking scene IS dialogue driven save for the BBQ scene at the theater of course. It starts off and Colonel Hans Landa (Christophe Waltz) of the German S.S. pays a visit to Perrier LaPadite for suspicion of harboring people who are better at making money than he is. People (and by people I mean ignorant yuppies) have told me that what makes this scene really great is how you don't expect what's coming or it's unpredictable or it pulls a 180 or whatever. First of all, how could you not expect (to an extent at least) what's coming? If you're watching a movie taking place in Nazi occupied territory and a high ranking officer suspects a civilian of safe-housing Jews, 9 times out of 8 you'll find a couple of families in their attic hoping their not breathing too loudly. That was my first guess even before Landa inquired as to the nature of his visit. What really makes this scene gripping to watch is Christophe Waltz. Colonel Landa is a man who doesn't need to try to intimidate anyone; he just naturally is. So when he explains that trying to conceal any secrets from him are utterly futile and he knows exactly where the poor bastards are hiding it becomes so crushing to see LaPadite breakdown and essentially bend over. This goes without saying that Waltz delivers a brilliant performance as a Nazi SS Colonel and I'm sure that's a phrase that isn't said very often and rarely a compliment. My one gripe about this scene is a petty complaint in the cinematographic department. Mind you it is wonderfully lit with the source of light being an apparent skylight that bounces off the wooden table and key lighting (Face-lighting) the two gentlemen. It it also cuts together very smoothly and subtly, emphasizing the slowly escalating conversation. My one nitpick however is one shot where it begins on LaPadite and trucks down under the floor boards to reveal the anticipated refugees. Personally I think it would have worked better if it never visually revealed their presence at all until Shosanna (Melanie Laurent) escapes through the window duct. I know I said that I anticipated them being there but it builds that much more tension just not seeing them and makes it much more painful to watch when LaPadite gives them up.

Sorry to rant on like that on only the first scene but it's quite well done and it oddly enough gave me a lot to talk about. Very well, on with the show.

You already know I thoroughly enjoyed the roles of Pitt and Waltz and the rest of the acting suits the mood of Inglourious Basterds quite well, save for Eli Roth who has the acting skills of a gerbil and quite frankly makes me ashamed to be a Massachusetts native. Otherwise no real major complaints in that area.

Something else I will credit to Tarantino is the way he uses language in this film. It cycles through English, German and French between the bastards, the Nazis and Shosanna (oh and if you wish to count it, a small amount of Greaseball). At times when their paths cross it becomes necessary to translate for one another. The language barriers between make for an amusing laugh and builds tension as there are times that you know something another character doesn't and whether it's comical or important you may be inclined to let out a chuckle or two. The downside is that with all the subtitles I often find myself with my eyes glued to the bottom of the screen as if I might as well have been watching 1970s porn. The second time I watched it I noticed details I hadn't seen the first time because I was too busy reading the fucking translations and missed something as simple as a facial expression. Granted something like this comes expected with any foreign film but this isn't a foreign film this is Tarantino. I didn't expect half the movie to be like reading cue cards. Yes I know this sounds petty and culturally ignorant, I mean it's only fucking subtitles but because this movie is so dialogue and character heavy it relies on you to keep up without missing a beat. I keep trying to read what's being said and then look back up and see the reaction of who it's being said to and then there's more to read and it cut to someone else and GAH! I didn't finish reading the sentence before it switched! Oh sure I think I know what it said and there's someone else laughing at a joke and- wait what was the joke? Godammit I missed it again! For the record, I implore you to take this argument with an enormous grain of salt as it is me complaining about how I can't read faster than a race horse pisses.

As I said this movie does not go without Tarantino's obnoxious influence. In this case they are deterring cutscenes explaining Hugo Stiglitz's (Til Schweiger) existence and Shosanna's plan to burn down the cinema. They come out of nowhere and if it wasn't for their specific relevance to the previous scene, they're that close to being complete non-sequitirs. Aside from being unnecessary they could have been explained with more dialogue but maybe Quentin realized there was too much of that already and decided to switch it up a bit. As if that wasn't enough we get a monologue from Samuel L. Jackson explaining each one and as much as I do like my fair share of Sammy J movies, his surprise appearance just takes me out of it. It's yet another example of Tarantino showing off his pride of being a filmmaker; doing something just because he can or he thinks it's artsy and cool. Then again Uwe Boll does the same thing with the same mentality with the only difference being his notion of "quality" so I suppose I should be grateful. At least Tarantino knows how to make his films entertain... to a point anyway.

Tarantino has been going around calling this his masterpiece. As far as that statement goes, I consider this movie "masterpiece" material like I consider Myspace a networking site. Although if someone's masterpiece is relative to the quality of their previous work than I suppose this could come close especially when compared to something like Deathproof. Despite my gripes and petty complaints Inglourious Basterds is good, in fact really good. It's one of the first Tarantino films I've enjoyed in a long time. Now I have just another 5 or 10 years of blubbering obnoxiousness before I enjoy another one of his films again.

DOMINO

2005
Directed by Tony Scott
Written by Richard Kelley and Steve Barancik
Produced by Tony Scott
New Line Cinema

Whether or not the real Domino Harvey was truly happy or not with her theatrical portrayal we may never know for sure. She never got the chance to see the final cut of it and maybe that’s for the best. Seeing yourself portrayed as a transparent, childishly guised little girl isn’t exactly something that would boost my spirits. Though only loosely based off of her true-life crusades as a bounty hunter I can’t imagine the real Domino Harvey watching this movie and remembering the good times. That is not to say Miss Harvey was better off dead but I can't help but feel that this movie would give her another reason to eat a brass sandwich (and yes I know she died of an overdose. I was being a jackass). As a disclaimer I will say that whether more or less truth is etched into the story is irrelevant. I am simply reviewing the movie, as it stands alone as a movie.

Domino (Keira Knightley) is one of those characters you can figure out almost instantly after 10 minutes into the film. Even prior to her inane life flashbacks you already understand what makes her dysfunction. It's like watching a teenager who wants to get into trouble with you but you want to shoo away because they're an immature twit. Also I'm sorry I don't find Kiera Knightley attractive but the day I fantasize about an anorexic barbie doll is the day I get a Brazilian wax, twice.

As Domino narrates her story to the audience and to Agent Taryn Mills (Lucy Liu) we jump to through hoops of time retracing events from a heist to Domino’s early childhood. Buzzing through her preteen adolescent years we see what is supposed to be an explanation of why she embodies her present-day persona. A back-track that seems to only buffer the ego, but then again Domino is highly self-indulgent. I don’t find that it contributes anything that wasn’t already implied. I implore the use of backstory but when it’s mundane and insignificant it becomes filler.

The visual conception wears your eyes down like a 400lbs man wears down seat cushion. The saturated yellow and green cross-reference washes over the whole movie. The editing is often meshed with hip hip music and channeling a music video style sequence and I’ve always felt that as a rather lazy attempt in filmmaking. Instead of creating your own pace and dynamic with your narrative you let a song do it for you and when a movie like DOMINO relies on it so consistently that it becomes a theme I question how much independent thought was put into it. There is often little eye light in many of Domino’s medium and close ups creating this segmented human skull effect as if her eyes have retreated back into her head. Appropriate considering it mimics her exterior psyche; simply a shell to hide what she believes to be a weaker person underneath.

The movie goes out of its way to tie philosophy and destiny into the plot. As Domino previously states: “In the end it all came down to fate”. So when Tom Waits (surprise) pops up being more “holier than thou” than a homeless Christian protesting “The End Is Nye” you can’t help but feel how forced it all is. It’s as if the original story was too raw so it was changed to give Domino an opaque quest in order for her to resemble a Hollywood hero just for the sake of appeal. The attempt is cheap and comes too little too late. Besides, Lateesha (Mo’ Nique) was the one that fucked her over in the first place, very stupidly I might add. I didn’t exactly peg Domino as the easily forgiving type even if it was out of desperation but then again I guess that’s what Tom Waits was for.

Another annoying splinter that comes to mind is how needlessly complicated the subplot about the heist becomes. They rope up four patsies to be the suspected robbers but one of them is the son of the mobster from whom they are stealing the money. So when the bounty hunters hand them back over to the same mobsters wouldn’t they recognize that he’s Don’s son? Or even if they didn’t and they were simply hired guns, they’d still kill the poor bastards either way. I keep asking myself too many confusing questions because the story keeps over-complicating everything.

While DOMINO may border around some truth it doesn’t hold up as a movie. The story dilutes itself with overcomplicated crime scenarios out of fear of being too uninteresting. I suppose the writers thought this movie needed some more stipulation since the story is about as enveloping as watching an anorexic not eating. Though if you share a weakness for flashy, colorful music videos than there’s at least something in it for you, you easily amused dolt. Personally I think Domino was better off not seeing the premiere. Better to die for reasons other than that you watched a biopic about yourself which made you hate yourself more than getting ditched at the junior prom for the gay guy.

For my first number: AVATAR

2009
Written and Directed by James Cameron
Produced by James Cameron and John Landau
Twentieth Century Fox

Studies show that if you live in a third world country with no running water, you are 1 in 3 people who have already seen Avatar. Like the bubonic plague in the olde days, this movie has been sweeping just about everywhere that has a sentient lifeform. After 10 years of apparently waiting for technology to catch up to the damned thing, James Cameron finally managed to hatch this nest egg with monumental success. Already whizzing past his previous record set with Titanic and profiting more money than God, Avatar is one of the, if not the most, financially successful films ever to hit theaters or have blue people

It's been showing off its extravagant, eye melting picture in not just 3-D but "revolutionary" 3-D; the kind of 3-D the Nazis in Indiana Jones uncovered from the Ark before their heads exploded. Revolutionary implies change and while I do think there are changes to come as a result of this film I don't think it's going to completely flip the industry. Then again what the fuck do I know? I'm young and naive.

After watching it in IMAX (Not that Digital Projection bullshit) I noticed a couple technical flaws with the 3-D technology right off the bat. First off when you're in an IMAX theater watching 3-D, depending on where you're sitting in the theater you may not get the full experience. Upon arriving at the theater a mere few minutes before the show started, my friends and I unfortunately had to resort to sitting 4 rows from the front. Aside from the stiff cranks in our necks, I noticed that I couldn't see some parts of the screen in 3-D. What happens is when you're sitting close to the screen on the far right side of the theater like I was, the far left of the screen will appear in its 3-D form but the right side which is closer to you will not due to the proximity and angle at which you are viewing it. So in order for your eyes to recognize the 3-D you have to be sitting in or near the best seats in the house. It's like going to a bakery and being the 30th customer of the day so they give you a loaf of bread that's half moldy and they spit on it.

What I did see, however, looked rather impressive. The foregrounds and backgrounds actually stand out from each other, the depth of field is dazzling especially with this movie and unlike the theme park 3-D gimmick, nothing actually pops out at you but just simulates a sharper detail in the picture. That being said, this technology is a long way from perfection. Like most new advances it's still in beta and I don't believe it's something to take over the entire industry.

Moving on to the movie itself, Avatar is set on Pandora, a newly discovered planet with resources yet to be consumed. So naturally our lovable corporations want to plunder every valuable resource they can scrounge using cheap labor. However a bunch of tall blue people called the Na'vi tribe keep thwarting repeated attempts to take their land... Is it just me or is this all sounding all too familiar? New explorers charted for new land in attempts to find riches only to run into the "savage" natives in defense for their own land? Perhaps I'm projecting a little too much. It's not like this completely resembles other stories like Pocahantas or Ferngully.

Our hero is called Jake Sully (Sam Worthington) who might as well be called Jake Bland or Bland Sully or maybe just Bland. If you ask me to summarize Sam Worthington's acting range I'd say he is to acting what drywall is to a color palate. You could replace him with a large cardboard figure with his face on it and still get the same results. We have the pleasure of listening to his riveting monologues and seeing his ventures with the Na'vi tribe as he tries infiltrating their ranks and stealing their women. I find myself in the same situation as District 9; feeling more connected to the Na'vi tribe more than my actual species and it doesn't help that every human character speaks like their nickname in high school was Captain Obvious and ate too much cheese.

My first plot concerning tick: Since most people have seen the trailer or have had the plot spoiled by that friend who you wouldn't mind seeing investing in a pyramid scheme, entering the movie becomes much easier. What Avatar fails to do is bring the uniformed viewer into the story without a small bit of confusion. Even when they explain the situation to Mr. Sully it remains slightly vague. Someone going into this movie with no prior knowledge would be wondering what this tribe is that everyone keeps mentioning and what is meant by "This is your Avatar". Granted most of that is cleared up in the next 20 minutes and the only people who haven't seen or heard about this movie are comatose or still in the third trimester but I digress.

From here on out the rest of it becomes utterly predictable: Jake betrays tribe, tribe is invaded, people die, Jake feels like a huge dick and so forth. Nothing besides the imagery really stands out. The standard fantasy formula at work. Sure it makes itself larger than life but so did Lord of the Rings and that took the time to develop massive subplots, characters and make you give a shit whether or not they died. Granted Avatar does what a fantasy movie should do which is entertain via the journey and not necessarily the destination. The action sequences are quite enthralling as are the tests and training Jake endures and the mystic history of the Na'vi tribe is an interesting tale that I wanted to see more of.

Despite the spectacle, it's too difficult to feel the aw and wow when it's too generic. The story, the characters, the dialogue and almost everything besides the atmosphere and the visuals don't make it very original. I bring up originality for this movie because it's been in the works for a fucking decade. For 10 years you could at least give it more stipulation than 2 hours of eye candy. I'm not saying that a film like this doesn't go without its accomplishments but visuals alone don't make for a great movie.

A Disclaimer

I've never liked the idea of reading or writing blogs because they're nothing but other people's thoughts on their own experiences and who wants to read that shit all day... Sigh, but I digress.

Besides that I've always felt that the idea of a blog is too self indulgent especially for myself. While I already embody the personality of a film snob, anymore indulging on my part and the doctors would find a tumor in my head in the form of my ego. However it seems I've finally given in to the powers that be (that being the eager, little voice in the back my head whose hobby is sorting out my guilty pleasures) and decided to begin a blubbering rant of my own.

Since I happen to be slightly more than enthusiastic about film and all that is visual fiction, I figured why not start a rant about the thing that transforms me in to a raging elitist.

While I can put essentially anything I want on this rant aside from pictures of myself in a zebra suit or something of that nature, I'm devoting this site of literary genius to simply reviews and any important topic or event happening in film that I think is worth writing about... Or at least whatever is picking my brain so much that I need to bitch about it.

EDIT: Oh and one more thing, this should go without saying but there are those too thick to quit; My reviews will contain spoilers so unless you've seen the movie or don't give a shit then don't read my reviews.

EDIT AGAIN: Another one more thing, if you're sensitive to cursing than you also might be disinclined to read my reviews as they do contain amounts ranging from moderate to the anger management variety. I try not to utter too many as I use them for emphasis and once you start hearing them too often it loses that intended effectiveness and that can get in the way if I'm trying to transfer rage. Carry on.

EDIT AGAIN AGAIN: Alright this is the last one I swear. For those of you who are familiar with my earlier reviews (that being the 5 or 6 of you) you're probably going to see those popping up here and there during my down time or if I'm feeling too lazy to bitch about something. The list isn't that long but I figured since really no one has seen them before, I'll modify them and slap them on here. So don't be surprised if you see one that looks familiar, which 95% of you won't and in such case should disregard this paragraph that I made you read out of spite.

Without further ado,

Fat Lip