Avatar

Year 3, Day 77 - 3/18/11 - Movie #807

BEFORE: Finally getting to this one. I don't think I could show my face at Comic-Con again without having seen this, I'd lose all my geek cred. Oh, I could have watched this at any time in the past 6 months, but I waited for the proper lead-in. It's all about context, right? I'm reversing last night's film, which featured aliens replicating humans, by watching a film where humans replicate aliens! Fortunately, linking is simple - Tony Shalhoub from "Impostor" was also in "Galaxy Quest" with Sigourney Weaver (last seen in "The Ice Storm"). Glad I thought of that!

THE PLOT: A paraplegic marine dispatched to the moon Pandora on a unique mission becomes torn between following his orders and protecting the world he feels is his home.

AFTER: This is a rather simple story, with a lot of complex details. Great artists and great filmmakers steal bits of other stories all the time - but it's putting them together in new and interesting ways that really advances the medium. Kind of like an Olympic diver jumping into a pool - there are only 2 or 3 different ways to jump into a pool (I'm guessing, work with me here...) but it's the form, the timing, the lack of splash, and the flourishes that distinguish a champion diver.

James Cameron told a really simple story with "Titanic" - boat hits iceberg, boat sinks. (Oh, sorry - SPOILER ALERT!) But it's all of the little intricate details that really made it a film for the ages. "Avatar" is a simple story at heart - it's "Romeo & Juliet", combined with a fish-out-of-water story, combined with "The Dragonriders of Pern", and splashes of "Return of the Jedi" (and of course, the "Star Wars" saga cribbed from Japanese films, Westerns, Buck Rogers, etc. - see what I mean?)

So it's all of the wondrous details that turn this dive into a real Triple Lindy - flying beasts, floating mountains, futuristic helicopters and a new spin on virtual-reality, for starters. Let's all have some of whatever Cameron was smoking! It's so rich and vibrant, I can almost forget that it's (essentially) a cartoon. Sorry, I mean "animated extravaganza".

After watching the first half, shame on you if you can't predict the turning points to come - I'd only accept that if you'd never seen another movie before. But there's something in the premise that's bothering me, and I can't quite put my finger on it. Something about how the plot necessitates the use of the avatar bodies, which justifies the transition to the CGI world. It's not like CGI is being used to tell the best possible story, but it's more like the story is exactly the way it is to allow CGI into most of the movie, which allows for filming the otherwise un-filmable. It's a case of form following function, or the art following the science.

It's also easy to see the Na'vi as an allegory for Native Americans (or Australian aborigines, or African slaves if you prefer) - with their tribal ways and their close harmony with their environment, and the audience is easily seduced into rooting AGAINST the humans (neat trick, that) simply because it seems that even in the future, and the destruction of Earth's environment, mankind hasn't learned a damn thing from history.

The thing that humans want from the people of the planet Pandora seems to be a material called "Unobtainium" - yes, that's right. What a horrible, horrible name. You'll never get it with that attitude, guys, think positive! Call it "Obtainium", or "LetsGetSomeOfTHAT-ium" to keep people's spirits up. It's the kind of name you give something in a screenplay, with an intent to replace it with a better name as soon as you think of one - so clearly, someone didn't. It's like hearing a hit song with too many "Woo-Woo" or "Yeah-yeah" parts - I call that bit of the song the "I'll write this part later" section. (See: "My Love" by Paul McCartney, or "Lights" by Journey)

Don't get me wrong, this film is a stunning achievement, a total game-changer for art and technology - and the top money-maker of all time, which makes me demand perfection, or at least a good stab at it. Could I find something to nit-pick about, in the single most popular film of all-time? Why, of course I can...

My major complaint is with the character of the Colonel, who ended up being more of a cartoon than any of the actual animated characters in the film. Would this gung-ho, hard-as-nails military guy really refer to the inhabitants of another planet as "roaches"? Umm, you're the guest on THEIR planet, dude! Humans wouldn't want aliens coming to Earth and stealing our water, or raping our land, so how does he justify doing it to another planet?

But of course, I understand that any proper conflict needs a good, strong villain. However, this brings me back to form following function - the character is the way he is because the story needs him to be - but is that justification enough?

And curse James Cameron for raising the bar - if you work in the film industry, this is the kind of film that makes you feel like you're not doing enough, like maybe you're wasting your time. Like how a back-up NFL lineman might feel, watching Brett Favre come out of retirement to win a Super Bowl - and then have the nerve to be completely gracious and humble about it. But you KNOW that he knows that he just schooled you.

Also starring Sam Worthington (last seen in "Terminator Salvation"), Zoe Saldana (last seen in "Star Trek"), Stephen Lang (last seen in "Another You"), Giovanni Ribisi (last seen in "Public Enemies"), Michelle Rodriguez, Joel Moore (last seen in "Art School Confidential"), Wes Studi (last seen in "Heat"), CCH Pounder (last seen in "Face/Off").

RATING: 9 out of 10

Impostor

Year 3, Day 76 - 3/17/11 - Movie #806

BEFORE: It's St. Patrick's Day, so I'm presented with a decision - do I watch an Irish-themed movie, like "Michael Collins", or "Far & Away"? Or do I stick with the birthday-themed plan, which has given structure to an otherwise-formless third Movie Year? I'm going with the latter - Gary Sinise gets Birthday SHOUT-out #20, and I get myself back into science-fiction.

Linking was a bit of a challenge - Jerry Lewis was in "The King of Comedy" with Robert De Niro, who was in "This Boy's Life" with Leonardo DiCaprio, who was in "Catch Me If You Can" with Tom Hanks, who was in "Forrest Gump" with Gary Sinise. If I can link to De Niro, I can get just about anywhere.

THE PLOT: An engineer creates the ultimate weapon in a battle against aliens, only to be suspected as an alien himself.

AFTER: For extra fun, I counted how many of this film's actors have starred in TV procedural dramas - the lead detectives of "CSI:NY", "Law & Order: Criminal Intent" and "Monk" are featured here, and among the soldiers were two more future cast members of "CSI" and "CSI: Miami". Did you spot them?

This film is set in 2050, and based on a story by Philip K. Dick, who wrote similar stories that were turned into movies like "Blade Runner" which I've seen, and "Total Recall", which I haven't. The guy liked to write about clones/replicants, and things like false memories and identities. ("If I'm not me, then who the hell am I?")

These themes pop up in this film as we see Earth under siege from an alien attack, and the humans have erected domes over their cities for protection. So, apparently the way for the aliens to destroy humanity is to send in a "human bomb", a replicant of an important human that is programmed to explode when in the presence of another important person, say, the President.

Sinise plays Spencer Olham, an important scientist who's accused of being such a bomb - at some point, aliens may have replaced him with a replicant/clone bomb that believes itself to be human - so as to pass a lie-detector test, one assumes, or fool any other type of scan. What a coincidence, Olham's the man who's invented a way to prove that humans are humans, so he's both a key target for the aliens, and the only man who can determine the truth about himself.

I'm reading a little between the lines here - the movie doesn't do a great job of explaining its own tech, of course it's extrapolating from the tech we have, which is the job of sci-fi, after all. I liked how some future tech was just taken as a given (detailed 3-D medical scans, locks that are opened by DNA) but a little more explanation of the alien tech as relating to the plot might have been appreciated.

Marvel Comics did a year-long story similar to this idea a while back, called "Secret Invasion", and it involved an alien shape-changing race called the Skrulls, and their decade-long plan to take over the Earth by masquerading as key superheroes. They also underwent brainwashing, so the aliens would believe themselves to be those heroes, and thus able to fool psychics, lie-detectors, etc. It was an interesting idea, but ended up being more of a smokescreen for a particular writer to dispose of characters he didn't like, and resurrect some of the deceased ones that he did like (Oh, they weren't dead, just held in an alien prison for the last 5 years. Sure...)

The problem was, if I read Iron Man's comic and care about him and his life, you can't suddenly tell me that he's been an alien for the last 2 years - so why did I waste my time reading a comic about him? In a similar vein, if the main character in your film is an alien sleeper agent, isn't my time spent caring about him wasted effort? (And if he's not the alien agent, then who is?)

Also starring Vincent D'Onofrio (last seen in "The Break-Up"), Tony Shalhoub (last seen in "Honeymoon in Vegas"), Madeleine Stowe (last seen in "The Two Jakes"), Mekhi Pfifer (last seen in "Clockers"), Elizabeth Pena (last seen in "Blue Steel"), with cameos from Lindsay Crouse (last seen in "The Juror"), Rosalind Chao (last seen in "I Am Sam") and Clarence Williams III. And that was Gary Dourdan from "CSI" and Adam Rodriguez from "CSI: Miami" as police troopers.

RATING: 6 out of 10 laser-beams

The Patsy

Year 3, Day 75 - 3/16/11 - Movie #805

BEFORE: Jerry Lewis carries over from last night's film, and earns Birthday SHOUT-out #19. Happy 85th Birthday, Jerry! This film also brings me back to the theme of mistaken identity / substitutes, which will carry over into the sci-fi chain.

THE PLOT: When a star comedian dies, his comedy team decides to train a nobody to fill his shoes in a big TV show.

AFTER: An inside look at the Hollywood comedy machine, which at the time consisted of making novelty records, appearing in nightclub revues, and doing the Ed Sullivan Show - before landing a gig on a TV comedy show, of course. Replacing a star comedy actor on a hit TV show - if only the films that I'm choosing could somehow be more relevant to today's headlines...what a shame.

This is almost the same film as "The Disorderly Orderly", if you just substitute "comedian" for "doctor" and "stage fright" for...umm, all the things Lewis's character was suffering from in "The Disorderly Orderly". But the formula works a little bit better here.

In this film, Lewis plays Stanley Belt, who's got a team of managers ready to write him jokes, help develop his public-speaking skills, and even make out with him (the cute female one only, of course).

I knew something was up with the background singers on Stanley's record, but I didn't realize they were all played by Jerry Lewis - I thought they were some famous music act in disguise. And apparently within the "Patsy"-verse there is also a star named Jerry Lewis, so that's some weird reality overlap. Same thing happened in "The Disorderly Orderly" with a promo ad in the background of a scene, for a film called "The Disorderly Orderly" starring Jerry Lewis. Did my mind just get blown?

Also starring Everett Sloane (also carrying over from last night's film), Peter Lorre (last seen in "20,000 Leagues Under the Sea"), Keenan Wynn, Phil Harris (star of Disney animation, TV and novelty records), John Carradine (father of David and Keith), with cameos from Hans Conreid, Scatman Crothers, Jack Albertson, Ed Wynn, Hedda Hopper, Ed Sullivan and Mel Torme. Oh, and that was Fritz Feld as the Maitre D' in the restaurant - there's a character actor who made a career out of playing waiters and hotel managers (see: "The World's Greatest Lover", "Silent Movie", "History of the World Part 1", "Hello, Dolly!", "Barefoot in the Park", etc.) and his signature move was to "pop" his hand over his mouth to call for faster service - I bet he showed up at casting sessions already dressed in a tux.

RATING: 5 of of 10 vocal coaches

The Disorderly Orderly

Year 3, Day 74 - 3/15/11 - Movie #804

BEFORE: Before I get back to sci-fi, a mini-tribute to Jerry Lewis. Let me see if I can explain my connective reasoning here - seeing Alec Guinness play 8 roles in "Kind Hearts and Coronets" calls to mind other cases of actors playing multiple roles in a film, such as Peter Sellers in "Dr. Strangelove" (dealt with him last week), Eddie Murphy in the "Nutty Professor" remake, and Jerry Lewis, who accomplished that feat in a movie I enjoyed as a kid, called "The Family Jewels". There he played six of a little girl's uncles, and the chauffeur that takes her to visit all of them, as she chooses which one she wants to live with - a darling little film. But I've seen that film, so it's ineligible for the countdown.

THE PLOT: When he flunks out of med school, Jerome Littlefield goes to work as an orderly in a private rest home where he wreaks havoc for everyone concerned.

AFTER: Jerome is a character who means well, but everything he touches seems to fall apart. That includes his medical career - reducing him to the lowly position of an orderly in a sanitarium - and the relationship he's got going with Julie, a young nurse. When a mysterious woman shows up at the facility after a suicide attempt, Jerome knows her name and volunteers to work extra shifts to pay for her treatment. Julie puts the relationship on hold when she realizes the connection between Jerome and the mystery woman.

It's almost like a soap opera - but Lewis' slapstick antics make sure that the film never goes too close to drama, not when there's always a chance to spill little round pills all over the floor, or allow a man in a full body cast to tumble down a hill.

Fortunately, the hospital administrator was once in love with Jerome's father, so she covers up his mistakes while he sees a psychiatrist to address his mental blocks. My problem is that Jerome seems to have too many problems - he's clumsy, he's sleep-deprived, he tries too hard, he's lovelorn, and he's got some weird psychosomatic disorder where he feels sympathy pain whenever someone describes their physical ills.
(and there seem to be a lot of physical ailments for a mental hospital, but what do I know?) The film should have picked one of these problems and stuck with it.

My other sticking point is that the head nurse isn't enough of a villain - she gets frustrated with Jerome, but can't seem to stay mad at him - they could have really amped her up to "Nurse Ratched"-level, but they didn't, so they have to introduce a stuffy head of the medical board late in the film, just so there is a proper villain. And then there's a madcap ambulance chase through the Hollywood hills, where said villain is dangerously careening around traffic on a runaway stretcher. Funny or not funny? I'm not sure.

Of course, there is a resolution to the mystery of the female patient, and it leads to solving Jerome's mental blocks, so he can finally become a doctor - great, but I'm not going to let him operate on me!

Also starring Glenda Farrell, Karen Sharpe, Kathleen Freeman (last seen as Mother Mary Stigmata in "Blues Brothers 2000") and Everett Sloane as Mr. Tuffington. OH, and Alice Pearce - funny, most of the cast seems to have appeared on westerns like "Wagon Train" in the 1950's and then went on to guest-starring roles in either "Bewitched" or "I Dream of Jeannie". Hey, work is work.

RATING: 4 out of 10 laundry bags

Kind Hearts and Coronets

Year 3, Day 73 - 3/14/11 - Movie #803

BEFORE: OK, I covered lying in "The Invention of Lying", and stealing in "Stealing Harvard", so this film covers cheating. Not the adulterous kind (I covered that in February), more of cheating to profit or get ahead. And though more than 50 years separate this film from last night's, linking is easy - Jason Lee was in "Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back" with both Carrie Fisher AND Mark Hamill, who of course were in the "Star Wars" films with Alec Guinness.

THE PLOT: A distant poor relative of the Duke of D'Ascoyne plots to inherit the title by murdering the eight other heirs who stand ahead of him in the line of succession.

AFTER: This classic film from 1949 actually fit in with this week's films rather well. As in "Stealing Harvard", the lead character has questionable morals, and is motivated by money. As in "King Ralph", the film is concerned with the succession, and demise of, British royalty. And as in "Changeling", there's a series of brutal crimes - that were committed before modern forensic techniques...

The kicker here is that Alec Guinness plays all eight of the members of the D'Ascoyne family who stand between the main character and the dukedom that he believes he is entitled to. These characters range in age from 24 to 80 (or so) and one is even a woman! This really shows off his acting range, and use of different voices.

This becomes what the British call "black comedy" - while it's not laugh-out-loud funny, the situation is both ridiculous and tragic at the same time. You could compare it to more modern material like "Final Destination", or even "South Park" in its depiction of multiple deaths. But it's unfunny in a completely different way from last night's film, which was just plain stupid.

According to the IMDB, there was talk of remaking this film, with Will Smith as the lead, and Robin Williams taking the roles of the multiple family members. Though production plans never developed, it's interesting to imagine it.

Still, it's hard for me to get completely behind rooting for a main character who's so without morals, and eager to murder his family members. I'm not alone in this, as the film's ending had to be tweaked, since the U.S. Production Code didn't permit movies to depict people successfully profiting from their crimes.

I'll get back to Alec Guinness in a couple weeks - his birthday is coming up in April - but first my chain's going to take me through a week and a half of a genre that Mr. "Obi-Wan Kenobi" allegedly detested - sci-fi.

RATING: 5 out of 10 coffins

Stealing Harvard

Year 3, Day 72 - 3/13/11 - Movie #802

BEFORE: This has become sort of a "Lie, Cheat & Steal" weekend - tonight is the cheating part (or is it the stealing part?). Martin Starr, of all people, carries over from last night's film. He played a waiter in "The Invention of Lying", and has a small role here as a convenience store clerk.

THE PLOT: A middle-class man turns to a life of crime in order to finance his niece's first year at Harvard University.

AFTER: See, crime doesn't pay. At least, it's not supposed to - but in this film, it might if the main characters weren't so inept at robbery. The premise here is that John Plummer (Jason Lee, last seen in "Chasing Amy") has finally saved enough money to get married and buy a house, but he's reminded of a promise that he made years ago, to pay for his niece's college tuition. Both the house and the tuition cost $30,000 - and that's what he's got, so he's got to make a choice.

Or he could have an open, honest conversation with either his girlfriend or his sister (or both) - but that doesn't ever seem to be an option. Because if he did that, we wouldn't see all the madcap robbery attempts that seem to be his best solution. But each attempt to steal just gets him in more trouble.

I think what bothers me most here is the math - does he need to put ALL of his $30,000 toward the house? What about a down payment of $10,000? He's got a job, so can't he get a mortgage? Is $30,000 the down payment plus wedding costs, or is it the entire cost of the house?

His niece says that she's saved money from her jobs, plus she's getting financial aid - so is the $30,000 she needs going toward her first year at Harvard, or her fourth? The film never makes this clear - does Harvard need all four years tuition up front or something? Or can he split his money and give Harvard say, $15,000 now, and find a way to save more money over the next three years? See, already by asking these questions, I've spent more time thinking about it than this film's scriptwriter, which is just sad to say.

I can't help it - I'm a problem-solver by nature, and there are about 100 ways I'd try to solve this problem before I resorted to "Hey, let's rob that guy's house." I do realize that for some people it may not be a long leap to a life of crime, but still... if you want me to respect this character, let's see a better thought process.

There are a lot of other characters roaming about - a detective, his girlfriend's father, and a criminal that the main characters knew in grade school - but their plotlines are mostly loose ends that the film hopes will tie together at the end, and when they don't, they're kind of forced together haphazardly.

And when the main character finally does have an honest conversation with his girlfriend about the money situation, does she offer to put her dreams on hold? Nope, because turning on her father and robbing him is SO much easier. Things all do work out in the end, but the way they do is very questionable - sends a rather strange message to the kids.

A film like this should come with the same warning label as the "Jackass" films do - kids, do not try these stunts at home.

Also starring Tom Green, Leslie Mann (last seen in "Funny People"), Dennis Farina (last seen in "Manhunter"), John C. McGinley (last seen in "Born of the Fourth of July"), Megan Mullally (last seen in "Fame"), Richard Jenkins (last seen in "Wolf"), Seymour Cassel (last seen in "Honeymoon in Vegas"), and Chris Penn (last seen in "All the Right Moves").

RATING: 3 out of 10 ski masks

The Invention of Lying

Year 3, Day 71 - 3/12/11 - Movie #801

BEFORE: Last night's film featured some big-league lying, plus earlier in the week "Another You" feature a compulsive liar character, so that leads me to this film, which flips the concept. Tonight is also the start of Daylight Saving Time, which really is a giant lie we tell ourselves every year, if you think about it. Anyone who says that there's a benefit to changing the clocks - be it energy savings, or health benefits, or economic reasons? More lies, lies and damned lies. What's that? We do it for the kids? OK, now you're just reaching. It's a crock.

Linking from last night is easy - Angelina Jolie was in "Mr. & Mrs. Smith" with Stephanie March, who has a cameo here.

THE PLOT: A comedy set in a world where no one has ever lied, until a writer seizes the opportunity for personal gain.

AFTER: This is something of a high-concept piece, showing a world much like our own, except that the human brain doesn't have the ability to lie, and every person is brutally honest. The arenas of filmmaking and advertising are the most changed from the ones we know, the implication being that both are essentially based on lies.

Until one man's brain somehow figures out that he can say something that isn't true (their language doesn't even have the word "true", since everything is that) and he uses this ability to get money, sex, and a career as a great screenwriter. In that sense, the film is a bit like "Groundhog Day", with one person having an ability no one else has, and using it to his advantage.

But I've got some problems with the concept - in a world without lies, would there even BE writers? Or casinos? Or burglars? Stealing is a form of lying, isn't it? A thief is just lying about whether that thing he stole belongs to him. And if people couldn't lie, that would mean they'd have no imagination, and then how did all of man's inventions come to be? Also, as depicted here, without the ability to lie, all humans would become naive, self-serving jerks. Where are the intelligent and nice people? What happened to the concept of "If you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all"? Would remaining silent always be considered a lie of omission?

I noticed there was no religion in the world, which is an interesting point - and late in the film, there's a whole riff on religion as a construct of lies, so that makes me think someone had an ax to grind, and therein lies the real message. I personally don't have a problem with religion, as long as people maintain the ability to think for themselves, and take the Bible lessons for their value, and not as historical facts.

But I wondered why the general populace in this film never figured out what a lie is, once they were introduced. My thought is that the concept would spread like a virus, and the world would change in a radically different way. I wanted to like this film, but I can't ignore that the premise fell apart about ten minutes in.

Starring Ricky Gervais (last seen in "Ghost Town"), Jennifer Garner (last seen in "Valentine's Day"), Jonah Hill (last seen in "Funny People"), Louis C.K. (another F.O.T.B., I've met him twice), Jeffrey Tambor (last seen in "The Hangover"), with cameos from Tina Fey (last seen in "Date Night"), Rob Lowe (last seen in "Thank You for Smoking"), Jason Bateman (last seen in "Couples Retreat"), Philip Seymour Hoffman (last seen in "Doubt"), Edward Norton (last seen in "The Illusionist"), John Hodgman, Fionnula Flanagan (last seen in "Yes Man"), Martin Starr, Jimmi Simpson (also seen in "Date Night"), and SNL's Bobby Moynihan.

RATING: 4 out of 10 casino chips