Showing posts with label James Cameron. Show all posts
Showing posts with label James Cameron. Show all posts

Friday, April 2, 2010

A Question on Good Friday


It's Good Friday which, besides the resurrection of Jesus and all that nice stuff means little to me as I get Friday's off anyway. Bummer.

Regardless, remember a week or so ago when James Cameron was talking about how soon so many movies will be in 3D that no one will care because the gimmick will lose it's specificity and people will just be bored by it? That time seems to be coming sooner than later.

It was reported today on /Film that there is plans for a fourth theatrical American Pie movie, which would pick up where American Wedding left off with most of the original cast returning (forgetting those 4 stupid direct-to-video American Pie Presents movies). It's apparently being written and directed by the two guys who wrote the Harold and Kumar movies. Oh yeah, and it might be in 3D.

Now, I know 3D is the hot commodity right now and all and it seems to have gotten to the point where studios feel their movies must be in 3D just to compete at the box office (which explains this whole Clash of the Titans post-production "fake" 3D conversion process) but really, is anyone out there going to see this just because of 3D?

Not only is it a comedy, but it's an established brand name series. What could 3D possibly add to American Pie that would propel anyone but those who would see it anyway to buy tickets? I don't know, am I so out of touch with the whole 3D craze that I'm just not getting it and people are actually excited by this news or does this just seem like one step closer to the inevitable demise of either 3D, Hollywood blockbusters or both?

Tuesday, March 23, 2010

Michael Bay Shows Restraint


There's a great article running over at Deadline Hollywood today about how studios are getting all hot and bothered over converting their big movies into 3D at the last minute. Personally, I've never seen a movie in 3D because A) I'm too cheap to pay extra for the gimmick, B) I've never seen a movie that gave me a burning desire to see it in 3D and C) in a post-Avatar world, 3D has stopped being about quality and is now just about studios desperately raking in as many spare dollars as they can.

James Cameron himself says it best in the article when he notes how after Toy Story theaters were flooded with sub par 3D animated films as if someone got it in their head that the success of that movie was in seeing cute things brought to life by computer animation and not say because of quality, originality, characters, story, etc. Now it seems that every movie is being converted into 3D at the last minute in order to capitalize on the success of Avatar, as if Avatar wasn't a big success because of quality, originality, characters...you see what I mean? It especially struck me that Warner Bros. made the announcement that all of their big tentpole releases will go through the 3D conversion process, especially considering when theaters didn't even care if they boycotted Alice in Wonderland a few weeks before its release because, as Mad Hatter mentioned in my comments section once, there are so many 3D movies lined up that exhibitors are sweating just trying to find enough 3D enhanced screens to get them onto.

And then Michael Bay weighs in on the pressure he is feeling on converting his Transformers 3 into 3D. Bay says that he tried to shoot the film using a real 3D camera so that the technique would feel authentic and have an air of professionalism about it, but it was too bulky to work with his complex, high speed style of action filmmaking. He proceeds to discuss, with a large degree of truth, that, despite what you may think of his movies, he always delivers a technically sophisticated product and he's not going to jeopardize that by giving it up to a technically unproven gimmick that he isn't sold on. Good for him. Like him or not, it's up to director's like Bay, who have clout within the studio, to ensure that the quality of their pictures don't suffer under the narrow-sightedness of a studio that thinks people will flock to anything just because it's 3D. And plus, if Transformers 3 is anything like Transformers 2, adding 3D into the mix will only result in leading to faster, more severe migraines.

In an age where studio tentpole pictures are getting worse and worse (Marmaduke? Yogi Bear? Battleship? Come on now) Hollywood is now trying to cut corners once again by not taking the time and effort that Cameron did to make Avatar's 3D process such a success, instead resorting to after-the-fact rush jobs. When will studios ever learn that fads become so because they possess a large degree of specificity and when you saturate the marketplace they will simply die off because audiences are bored with them? Personally, I can wait to see Warner Bros. shooting itself in the foot once 3D films start to bomb at the box office and to be honest, I see that happening sooner then later (Piranha 3D anyone?).

Check out the full article here.

Monday, March 8, 2010

And the Oscar Went To...

The Oscars are over. What will Nataniel R write about now over at Film Experience considering he was averaging around an ungodly 3-5 Oscars posts a day? So what did I think of the Oscars? They were okay. Some things worked, some didn't. There was a lack of drama except for one interrupted acceptance speech for best short documentary. That said, I just wanted to share a couple of random observations I made throughout the night.
  • Steven Martin and Alec Baldwin are funny guys. Hopefully though, if there is ever a pair of hosts again they can have dialogue that sounds more like a routine and not an improv at Second City. The picture of them backstage in a couple's Snuggie was a huge laugh though, as was Martin's comments about writing Geoffrey Fletcher's speech.

  • Not only was Neil Patrick Harris' opening song completely unglamourous and mostly unfunny, but what was with the lighting in the audience? The camera was cutting to people in the darkness as he was singing about them.

  • Robert Downey Jr. could make a funeral funny. Best presenter of the night.

  • Sean Penn managed to go the whole night without kicking or punching anyone but still couldn't manage a coherent introduction to the Best Actress nominees. *Update* I haven't even published this post and I'm eating my own words.

  • Jeff Bridges is a rare kind of star: he dedicated his Best Actor award to his late parents, he's been in a marriage for over 30 years, he's acting has never been undermined, to my knowledge, by any personal drama and he's a heck of a great actor on top of it. Did his speech ramble on? Sure it did, but he deserved the moment.

  • Tyler Perry: "I'm on stage at the Oscars. I better make the most of it because it probably won't happen again." My thoughts exactly.

  • I don't know what's worse, a pointless montage paying homage to horror films or the fact that it included scenes from Twilight. And to think, this is why no original songs were performed.

  • Although it was an impressive display of physical acrobatics, Mad Hatter said it: if I wanted to watch America's Next Dance Crew, I could have changed the channel to it. I think it's safe to say we can thank Adam Shankman for that number.

  • Precious won Best Adapted Screenplay. I picked Up in the Air to win. I guess I learned a valuable lesson: don't pick the better film to win because it probably won't.

  • Mo'Nique's acceptance speech was one of the best and most heartfelt. She thanked Hatti McDaniel, the first black actress to win an award for Gone With the Wind, for going through when she had to go through so she wouldn't have to. Back then awards were given out during dinner and McDaniel was forced to sit at a table by herself.

  • I don't know if she deserved to win or not, but Sandra Bullock's speech was good too.

  • Thinking about Best Actress, Oprah almost had me sold on Gabby Sidibe and then I realized that she probably won't have much of a career after Precious because, not to sound course or anything but, she's can't really play anything but fat black girls.

  • Did you see that moment before she read the winner when Barbara Streisand said "It's finally happened," giving Lee Daniels just one second of hope?

  • Kathryn Bigelow is 58 and still looks better than most of the young stars in attendance. Good for her. Also nice to see her take home the big awards as she hasn't exactly been the kind of filmmaker you'd expect to make award winning films in the past.

  • I was strangely unmoved by the John Hughes tribute. The montage of his work was weak and, outside of Planes, Trains, and Automobiles and Sixteen Candles I've never found his work anything more than simply entertaining and this tribute didn't do anything to change my mind about him, or his deserving a separate honour all to himself
  • Speaking of honouring late celebrities: where the hell was Farah Fawcett in the montage?

  • Ben Stiller bounced back this year after his tasteless parody of Joaquin Phoenix last year. He played the Avatar get-up perfectly, as a man who looked like a jackass and knew it. That said, where was all the other big comic talent like Will Farrell and Jack Black? Did Shankman sacrifice them for Taylor Lautner and Kristien Stewart?

  • Next year, how about going back to five Best Picture nominations? That's all anyone really needs.
  • Why is Pedro Almodovar introducing a category that he clearly deserved to be nominated in?

  • Speaking of Best Foreign Film: do voters just pull names out of a hat for this category? Remember a few years ago when Pan's Labyrinth won every award it was nominated for except Best Foreign Film? I think Almodovar got the shaft that year too.

  • While we are on this topic: why does Quintin Tarantino feel the need to start yelling into the mic at every awards show? He did it at the Grammys and now he has done it here too.

  • I long for a year when Jason Reitman will actually be the frontrunner. He really deserves some wins.

  • I got three of my predictions wrong. Not bad.
With that said, I noticed two big Celebrity Connections last night. Check 'em out:





Could T-Bone Burnett really just be James Cameron in disguise? You Decide.







Could Hurt Locker writer Mark Boal be Jason Reitman in disguise? You Decide




Thursday, February 18, 2010

James Cameron



James Cameron is a great filmmaker, but he still kind of annoys me. I liked him better back in the 90s where he was proceeded by a reputation as being some sadistic, perfectionist tyrant on set of his movies and wasn't afraid to rip the people around him new ones. I can admire that. I like people who have a vision that is so determined and singular that they aren't afraid to call out the people around them who are hindering them on their journey to creating something great.

However, now that it seems Cameron has cooled down with age (or maybe it's because he got rid of the facial hair), he's still kind of pompous in that goofy Canadian way and tends to come off as the guy who says stupid things in public before thinking them out fully (announcing he needs to pee while accepting best director at the Golden Globes, like come on).
I say this because today Deadline Hollywood has posted four different videos of Cameron (three from MTV and one with Charlie Rose). In the first one, with Rose, his ego is on full display as he says he hopes Avatar wins best picture but he wants Kathryn Bigelow to win best director for The Hurt Locker, not because she deserves it, but because he doesn't need another best director award. I don't know if he is being sincere, is saying this because he knows the Director's Guild award usually determines the Oscar winner and that one went to Bigelow, or if he's just saying, "Ya, our film is the best of the year, but give my poor little ex-wife an honour because she's not as big a star as me."

Then Cameron is asked about any advice he'd give to Marc Webb for directing Spider-Man in 3D which gets Cameron talking about the rebooted Batman movies, which he liked so much better than the first four which he couldn't stomach. Of course, nice guy that he is, says he doesn't want to "throw anyone under the bus" immediately after calling out Tim Burton on being responsible for the first Batman movies. Sorry Jim, I think the Burton Batman movies sucked too, but once you call someone out, you can't take it back. I hope Burton catches this and responds like he did with the whole debate about how he stole the end of Planet of the Apes from Kevin Smith's Chasing Dogma comic book.




Then Cameron talks about how he is done with the Terminator series and has no comment on the plans for a fifth and sixth movie in the series other than he's glad someone else can make some money off it like he did, right before getting into information on an Avatar sequel. This whole Avatar sequel talk bothers me because it seems opinions on it change by the week. First Cameron says that it will probably be a long time before a sequel because he won't make one until he knows he has a great script. Then Rupert Murdoch came out saying that he wants another Avatar movie as soon as possible. Now here Cameron is saying he's been thinking about new projects and Avatar is definitely a strong possibility.

Personally, I could live without another Avatar film. It was a complete, self-sufficient story and I feel to continue it would simply be like the second and third Matrix films. They were good, but at the same time they felt like unneeded continuations of a singular film that still stands on its own without them and apart from them. Also, unlike Cameron's Terminator 2 which was the big sequel to a minor film, Avatar 2 would need to be the ultra-major sequel to a major film. Expectations would probably kill it on arrival.

Friday, January 15, 2010

Avatar Backlash Continued...


After just posting about how I didn't feel like editorializing today I'm going to anyway. Yesterday I posted about how Italian parent groups were speaking out against Avatar opening in Italy today with a G rating, meaning any kid off the street could get in to see it. My reaction: so what?

Then today A story popped up on Scanners: Blog written by Jim Emerson, who quotes attacks on Avatar from both Vatican newspapers and radio stations. The criticism states that the church is worried that Avatar preaches that nature is something to be worshipped, making it into a new sort of religion separate from God.

This bugs me for several reasons. The first is the most obvious: when will the Vatican learn that their public outrages usually do nothing but promote the very works they cry out against (The Da Vinci Code anyone)? And really, having taking the top Box Office spot for 4 weeks in a row in North America, and slowly inching it's way to breaking the worldwide Box Office record set by Titanic in 1997, does the Vatican really think they are going to stop this lumbering beast? And why should they? At the very least, Avatar is glorious entertainment and is a masterpiece on that plane of existence alone.

Now to get to the theoretical problems with this criticism. Not surprisingly, none of the church criticism makes it explicitly clear why nature is not something to be worshipped. Taken from the Catholic perspective, Genises outlines the six days in which God slaved to create nature and everything that it is comprised of: trees, water, animals, etc. He then took the seventh day to rest and admire his work. Why then, if nature is one of God's most precious creations, should it not be worshipped? In a sense, if nature is a creation of God, then nature is in some way a form of God and therefore to worship nature is to worship God, no? If ever there was a symbolic representation of God in the movies, the Na'vi Tree of Voices, which knows all and contains all of the history of the Na'vi race, is it.

If you believe this (and I personally don't. I'm all for Darwin), then is Avatar not a fable about a war in which to protect God's creation (or, on a more fundamental level, religion) from being destroyed under the greed and injustice of contemporary capitalism? If anything, Avatar instructs us away from the all consuming influence of the man-made city and back into the woods where he can once again become one with nature and thus one with God. To see the destruction of nature would mean the destruction of religion. If anything, Pandorum stands in as a surrogate Garden of Eden.

To take it another way, the Na'vi are presented as Natives of the land. Anyone who knows anything about Native American religion, knows that it revolves around nature. The scene in which Sully asks an indigenous creature to its permission to kill it is right out of Native belief. The soul is that of the animal and it must offer it to you for you have no right to just take it.

Taken this way the film has nothing to do with Catholicism and the Vatican should just butt out completely. To disown a film that mimics the practices and ideologies of Native spiritually is simply a way for the Vatican to put itself at the center of attention and, as it always does so well, hold Catholicism above all other religions. Maybe the Vatican could rest easier it night were it to realize that for a work to present one form of spiritual belief is does not signal attack against all others. The Vatican is like the big bully on the playground who won't let anyone else but his friends play on the jungle gym.

For me, as I stated in my Avatar review, the meaning of the film exists not on the level of the physical, but on both a symbolic and a poetic level. Religion doesn't even factor into the equation. The message is not to replace God with nature because belief in one if better than the other, but that it is easy to be corrupted by the greed of civilization and that, to find oneself, we need to be reacquainted with the tranquillity and simplicity of nature (i.e. out own personal history) where time slips away and one is truly free to be oneself in what is essentially a society-less society. It's a lesson that's been at the heart of Western literature since the dawn of Manifest Destiny where the West invaded the South, tamed the savages and built a society from which capitalism and consumerism could prevail.

To be one with nature is thus not about shunning God, but about reorganizing your life and your personal priorities in order to find the essence of what is most meaningful to you. If anything, such a life would bring one closer to God, whatever a person's belief or conception of Him may be. Is this not exactly what happens to Sully once assimilated into Na'vi life? The Vatican doesn't acknowledge this though because, in reality, none of their one-sided protesters probably haven't bothered to even see the movie anyway.

Wednesday, January 13, 2010

More Spider-Man Speculation







=








With news that the main cast and crew have abandoned Spider-Man 4 earlier this week, with Sony now planning to reboot the franchise instead of continuing on with the sequel, rumours are now floating about what will become of the next movie.

One I read that interested me was that Sony has acquired a Spider-Man treatment that James Cameron once wrote many years ago before the first film was ever made and that he could possibly come on board as a director. This doesn't really make sense considering the studio, while toying with the idea of casting Anne Hathaway in the fourth film, ultimately decided that her price tag was too high and that the series could sell itself without such additional star power. It;s hard to say, but I'm willing to bet that after the astronomical success of Avatar, Cameron's going rate probably isn't so cheap these days. Yet, Cameron taking on Spider-Man is, if nothing more, an interesting thought.

The rumour that worries me the most is that Robert Pattinson of Twilight fame may become the new Spider-Man. This makes perfect sense from a marketing perspective, but if anyone out there at Sony is reading, I have only this to say:


PLEASE NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!

Sunday, January 10, 2010

Avatar Review (5 out of 5)


James Cameron waited 12 years to follow up his mega blockbuster Titanic but, at the end of 2009, he couldn’t have chosen a better time to return to his thrown as the king of big budget cinema. Cameron’s newest film Avatar is a revelation; a godsend: proof that there are still people in Hollywood who know how to make something meaningful and coherent with $250 million (or however much it cost). Like Steven Speilberg and David Lean before them, Cameron knows how to wrap his head around epic stories and turn them into something spectacular. And even though Avatar is an event of endless special effects and adrenaline fueled excitement, Cameron also knows that special effects are best served when they are enhancing a films reality not substituting it. In 2009 where one film after another off the Hollywood dream factory assembly line has been a noisy, hollow, brain-dead exercise in special effects crashing head on into other special effects, Cameron manages to tell a real story around the spectacle with a real purpose that involves real characters that, despite being mostly animated, an audience can get wrapped up in.

It’s also one of those rare films that shows that special effects are more than hyper speed flashes of colour and noise, but can have depth and gravity, that are quiet and tranquil and that are, at times, so hauntingly beautiful, that we wish, more than anything, for them to go on forever. Avatar is not just an event or an extravaganza then (although it is both), but a modern American masterpiece: a reminder of all the reasons we go to the movies in the first place: to laugh and cry, to be exhilarated, to be dazzled with unimaginable sights and, most of all, to have our hearts and minds stolen away for a brief time in the process.

The story begins with a crippled marine named Jake Sully (Sam Worthington). Sully finds himself on the planet Pandorum which has been invaded by humans after the crumbling of Earth. On Pandorum is a special unit of scientists who have created avatars: lifelike replicas of the local native race Na’vi that are genetically modified to fit the body of those who will occupy them. The purpose of this experiment is to instill trust in the Na’vi in order for the humans to better understand them and their world.

Sully is selected to be part of the Avatar team because, not only does his disability render him useless to the marines but because originally on the project was his twin brother before his death, meaning that his Avatar matches Sully’s DNA perfectly.

In charge of the operation is Dr. Grace Augustine (played with a typical hard edge by Sigourney Weaver) who is not impressed to have an inexperienced fighter on her team when what she needs is a scientist. Unbeknownst to her, the top humans see this opportunity as an easy in and order Sully to report back to them with any information he uncovers from the Na’vi because their home just so happens to sit atop a valuable mineral that would be worth millions to the Americans. If Sully can’t convince them to vacate peacefully, they’ll simply bulldoze the place.

Upon making contact with the Na’vi through Neytiri, the daughter of the tribe leaders, the Na’vi accept Sully to the dismay of her warrior brother who is adamant in his belief that Sully can never be a true Na’vi. Slowly but surely, as Sully learns about the Na’vi and their way of life he falls in love with Neytiri, admitting this to her in one of the film’s most wonderfully romantic scenes. What is particularly remarkable here is how, even though the Na’vi and their environment is completely computer generated, Cameron manages to provide his characters with discernible physical characteristics and human personalities that allow an audience to connect with them and their story on a individual level. Although none of them are real, their characters are so well defined, their relationships so human and their story so meaningful that they begin to take on a certain human dimension until the illusion of watching animation has completely evaporated and there is no disorientation present as the film cuts between animation and its human actors.

What Sully learns is that the Na’vi has a specific psychological connection to nature and their surroundings through their ponytails. With them they can connect mentally with animals that they can then control for hunting purposes and with their sacred tree which holds all of their heritage and memories. This of course touches Sully deeply and he begins to turn against the Americans who desire personal gain even at the expense of obliterating a species.

This story is the stuff of classic American folklore and Western storytelling: of the civilized man who enters back into the wild in order to tame it and introduce it to progress. Only this time that man is consumed by the purity and tranquility of the wilderness and finds himself reborn into the true, uncomplicated utopia of Na’vi existence. The film thus stops being an evolved special effects blockbuster and instead reveals itself as a deeply personal yet subtle social commentary.

The parallels to Iraq and the ingrained anti-war statements are clear, but even more meaningful is the inherent contradiction of this message within the medium of this film: as if Cameron is taking us both forwards and backwards at the same time. It’s evolution through devolution. That the message of returning and being reborn into nature, thus finding ones true inner identity, occurs in such a technically evolved film, packed to the brim with state-of-the-art special effects and exhilarating action sequences, is very heartening. Cameron knows, as all great storytellers must, that the best, most meaningful stories or parables are born from the lessons of the past. That’s how they derive their meaning. That’s why people relate to them. In a world consumed by technology, all we really yearn for is to be reintroduced to the simplicity of nature. That’s why almost every big budget, special effects driven Hollywood film in 2009 failed: they neglected to tell meaningful stories at the expense of the spectacle. That Cameron manages to tell one, especially one as powerful and socially relevant as this one, is a breathtaking reminder of what films used to and still can be.

So then, in the third act, when war breaks out between the Na’vi and the humans, resulting in an unending action sequence of such visual mastery that it must be seen to be believed (none of this shaky, incomprehensible stuff that passes for action sequences these days), this outcome is justified as the story has earned it by investing our personal interests in the results of the war instead of just being anxious to get to blowing stuff up.

I’m reminded then, of a great Christopher Walken scene in Poolhall Junkies in which he leans over to the hero and asks him if he ever watches the animal channel. He tells the kid how the lion, king of the jungle, sits around all day while the other animals go around, giving him flack until one day he gets up and tears into all of them. Why does he do it? To show them who he is. With Titanic, and now Avatar, James Cameron has shown himself to be that lion. In 2009, while Hollywood drowns its credibility in a sea of meaningless special effects spectacles, Cameron returns from hibernation to show us what great films are all about. This isn’t just a film: it’s film history being written