Review: Avatar
5 stars (out of 5)
By R. Kurt Osenlund
James Cameron's “Avatar” is an amazing experience, its miraculous, built-from-scratch imagery dancing and darting across the screen, which Cameron transforms into an immersive, otherwordly terrarium. Nearly 15 years in development, this $250 million sci-fi saga is unquestionably the most incredible visual achievement to hit theaters since Peter Jackson's “The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King,” stretching the limits of make-believe and more than living up to a colossal amount of self-induced hype. I don't know if it represents the future of movies, but it certainly raises the bar.
The story takes place in the year 2154 on Pandora, a distant, Earth-sized moon born out of Cameron's boyish imagination. Inhabited by a race of blue-skinned, cat-like, 10-foot-tall natives called the Na'vi, Pandora is the ultimate conquest of the American military, who've traveled light years to harvest its rich supply of Unobtainium, a not-so-subtly named mineral of which Earth is in dire need in light of its very real energy crisis. Problem is, the biggest stash of the mineral lies beneath the Na'vi's home base, a tree the size of the Empire State Building that the environmentally-friendly locals have no intention of abandoning.
Sunday, December 20, 2009
Monday, December 14, 2009
DISNEY'S A CHRISTMAS CAROL
Review: Disney's A Christmas Carol
3.5 stars (out of 5)
By R. Kurt Osenlund
I've said it before: 3-D animation is as much a curse as it is a blessing. To be sure, it's often great fun to sit through a 3-D movie, and the technology is unquestionably great for the industry (it is, after all, one viewing experience that can't be pirated), but it is also a distraction, a pesky, showy contrivance that, ironically, can act as a buffer between the viewer and the art and story of the film at hand.
As such, “Disney's A Christmas Carol” is a joy and a joke. It is both a spectacular entertainment and a spectacularly gimmicky product. It's the latest from the filmmaker Robert Zemeckis, who's apparently lost interest in directing traditional, live-action movies like his Oscar-winning “Forrest Gump,” and has instead channeled all his energy into refining the motion-capture animation style he previously used to bring “The Polar Express” and “Beowulf” to life. In that respect, Zemeckis has surely succeeded, as “A Christmas Carol,” for one thing, boasts the most lifelike human characters I've ever seen in a film of this type. Gone are the dead-eyed expressions and glazed complexion of Tom Hanks's train conductor in “The Polar Express.” What we now have are realistic, sometimes ugly people with emotional gazes and skin covered in blemishes, stubble, wrinkles and rosy cheeks brought on by the frigid London winter (they also have Londoners' bad teeth).
3.5 stars (out of 5)
By R. Kurt Osenlund
I've said it before: 3-D animation is as much a curse as it is a blessing. To be sure, it's often great fun to sit through a 3-D movie, and the technology is unquestionably great for the industry (it is, after all, one viewing experience that can't be pirated), but it is also a distraction, a pesky, showy contrivance that, ironically, can act as a buffer between the viewer and the art and story of the film at hand.
As such, “Disney's A Christmas Carol” is a joy and a joke. It is both a spectacular entertainment and a spectacularly gimmicky product. It's the latest from the filmmaker Robert Zemeckis, who's apparently lost interest in directing traditional, live-action movies like his Oscar-winning “Forrest Gump,” and has instead channeled all his energy into refining the motion-capture animation style he previously used to bring “The Polar Express” and “Beowulf” to life. In that respect, Zemeckis has surely succeeded, as “A Christmas Carol,” for one thing, boasts the most lifelike human characters I've ever seen in a film of this type. Gone are the dead-eyed expressions and glazed complexion of Tom Hanks's train conductor in “The Polar Express.” What we now have are realistic, sometimes ugly people with emotional gazes and skin covered in blemishes, stubble, wrinkles and rosy cheeks brought on by the frigid London winter (they also have Londoners' bad teeth).
Sunday, December 6, 2009
UP IN THE AIR
Review: Up in the Air
5 stars (out of 5)
By R. Kurt Osenlund
It's appropriate that the year's two best American films – the blissful Disney/Pixar adventure “Up” and now Jason Reitman's enormously satisfying tragicomedy “Up in the Air” – both have the same skyward direction in their titles, letting you know straight away they're a cut above the rest. What's also strangely fitting is nearly every actor in “Up in the Air,” from lead stars to cameo players, previously appeared in at least one other 2009 film, all of which were either less or far less rewarding than director and co-writer Reitman's incomparably timely tale of a man adrift in a very familiar world. It's as if the actors have been breaking us in and gearing us up for the greatness of this year-end offering.
5 stars (out of 5)
By R. Kurt Osenlund
It's appropriate that the year's two best American films – the blissful Disney/Pixar adventure “Up” and now Jason Reitman's enormously satisfying tragicomedy “Up in the Air” – both have the same skyward direction in their titles, letting you know straight away they're a cut above the rest. What's also strangely fitting is nearly every actor in “Up in the Air,” from lead stars to cameo players, previously appeared in at least one other 2009 film, all of which were either less or far less rewarding than director and co-writer Reitman's incomparably timely tale of a man adrift in a very familiar world. It's as if the actors have been breaking us in and gearing us up for the greatness of this year-end offering.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)