Moviesucktastic: Special effect

Showing posts with label Special effect. Show all posts

Friday, February 19, 2010

Oscar Watch Review: Avatar

Film: Avatar
Nominations: Art direction, Cinematography, Directing, Film editing, Original score, Best picture, Sound editing, Sound mixing, Visual effects

In our goal to give somewhat fair (we're not going to pretend to be completely unbiased here) and fully-informed coverage of the Academy Awards this March, Joey and I are determined to not only view every film up for a major award, but to review them as well.

With this in mind, it would seem a bit unfair not to mention Avatar with the others as we review them. However, our opinions have been broadcast quite clear; we have talked about the film in ad nauseum on the MovieSucktastic Podcast, and have covered it in numerous blog posts.

So, just consider this a quick recap:

Avatar is, without a doubt, the most popular film of the year, and most likely one of the most popular films of the decade. A mega-budget sci-fi fantasy space epic that takes place on a completely CGI-rendered alien planet, Avatar is filled with some of the most impressive displays of computer animation and 3D film-making to date. It is truly a stunning visual spectacle to behold.

It is also a film that features a shallow, thin, and decidedly unoriginal plot. Pointed out by many critics to be nothing more than a literal copy of Dances with Wolves, Pocahontas, and even Ferngully (which has seen a rocketing increase in sales and rentals due to the unfavorable comparisons), Avatar has received so much deserved criticism regarding the screenplay that director James Cameron has had to come out and publicly respond to accusations of blatant plagiarism. It is an overly simplistic plot that is more suitable for its cartoon feature predecessors, and barely manages to hold together the overly-long 162 minutes special effects extravaganza, especially considering that the PG-13 film was geared towards children and family audiences.

Avatar deserves most of its Oscar nominations. The sound, score, direction, editing and visual effects are all noteworthy for what they achieved. But primarily, all of this is driven by a film's story, the vehicle that drives everything that takes place on screen. As a whole, the excellence of what takes place on the screen in Avatar is weakened and diminished by the inadequate and generally lazy screenplay. The fact that this shallow spectacle has actually garnered an Oscar nomination for Best Picture is nothing more than an insult to all of the other films, past and present, that bothered to lend as much attention to the craft of the storytelling as they did for the visual effects utilized to enhance it.

The truly sad part of it is, Avatar might not have gotten its Best Picture nomination if the Academy hadn't bloated the size of the category to ten nominations The previously sufficient five slots wouldn't have left them enough room to also nominate District 9, so they wouldn't look like complete idiots for passing over a film that managed impressive special effects and a great screenplay (which it has also been nominated for, by the way) at a fraction of Avatar's ridiculous budget.

It is also my theory that the only reason they didn't try to nominate Avatar for screenplay isn't because it was a weak script, but because it would be hard to rationalize whether it belonged in the Original or Adapted category.

There, I think I'm done now.

Friday, January 15, 2010

Avatar Revisited: Opening Pandora's Box

I've been talking about James Cameron's Avatar quite a bit recently.

Not completely by choice, mind you. MovieSucktastic co-host Joey and I did indeed see Avatar opening weekend, 3D and all, mainly so we could review it and get it out of the way. Our Podcast and Blog reviews were rather tepid and dispassionate: the story was bland and uninspiring, and while the effects were great, they didn't push the envelope of 3D or CGI as far as the hype implied. Not completely bad, but nothing mind-blowing, with a few good moments and enough eye-candy to make it worth watching. I filed my unimpressed opinion and moved on.

The all sorts of Hell broke loose.

People from far and wide reacted to my review as if I had individually emailed them and called them slack-jawed morons for even seeing the film, let alone enjoying it. Insults and personal attacks poured in as a flood of emails came to the defense of Avatar and its now billion-dollar box-office take. How dare I attack a genius like James Cameron. You critics hate anything that people like. Why don't you go back to painting ceilings. You're an idiot. The title of your podcast sucks. Why don't you try something creative yourself instead of picking on other people? You're just a Hipster Wannabe who needs to hate anything popular. Why must you destroy all that is good and decent in the world? God hates you.

Needless to say, I was mildly surprised. I went back and double-checked my review, just in case I had written a scathingly negative review and forgotten. Nope. In fact, I've read Three-Star reviews of Avatar more negative and critical than my piece. Yet, here was a veritable mob of angry villagers ready to burn me at the stake for breaking from the herd. They backed me into a figurative corner, forcing me to either defend myself or succumb to their frenzied blows.

So, unfortunately, I've had to push back a little. I don't mean this in an aggressive or combative way, of course. But what it all comes down to, is that I have been forced to reevaluate my stance on Avatar.

There is no denying that Avatar is now a runaway hit. You can't take that away from the film, nor would I want to. I said from the beginning that the film successfully achieved all that it wanted to, and it ultimately succeeds at what it is, a hollow but dazzlingly brilliant special effects display. Everyone loves fireworks. Doesn't make them bad. But as the mantra at MovieSucktastic asserts, just because you like a film, it doesn't mean it isn't bad. I like Twinkies, but that doesn't make them a culinary masterpiece. But according to these vocal and rather inhospitable attackers, the pleasure they derived from the film means it must be great. It simply must be.

Delusional or not, there are simply way too many people singing praises and making excuses for this nearly half-billion-dollar remake of Ferngully out some apparently psychotic need to relive the magic of seeing Star Wars for the first time as children. And maybe that's all this is: a bunch of world-weary adults squeezed so tightly by an overwhelmingly depressing series of political and economic disasters that they have clung to this overpriced epic in some drastic attempt to retreat emotionally to a simpler, more innocent time in their lives. A time when movies were still a magical gateway to a fantastic world of fantasy and adventure.

But here's the rub: you can do that without lowering your standards, and standards have indeed lowered. It hasn't even been a year since people were going out of their way to dump on Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen for being a lengthy exercise in shallow screen-writing punctuated with chases, explosions, and over the top special effects. Michael Bay was criticized by all for being an over-hyped hack who was all visuals and no storytelling, despite the film's generous take at the box-office. But now here we are, with a director and film guilty of the exact same thing, and people are screaming for a sweep at the Oscars.

And here's the big run: it isn't the hardcore science fiction fans doing the chest-thumping. I recently voiced my general displeasure with Avatar while acting as a guest speaker at a recent science fiction group gathering, and while not all agreed with my criticisms, these die-hard fans merely engaged in a spirited yet friendly debate on the subject. No, the angry fans declaring the unquestionable brilliance of this film seem to be the casual film viewers, ordinary people who are not usually obsessive with their tastes in film, but have chosen this of all movies to claim as their own shining example of the pinnacle of film-making.

Is this what we can expect now? People spending all year bitching and whining about Hollywood cranking out expensive but poorly written special effects displays, only to inexplicably drop to their knees in awe at the first mega-budget cross between Dances with Wolves and Shrek that comes out in 3D? I was originally noncommittal in my reception Avatar, not willing to declare disapproval, but merely to state my lack of awe. But, as I say, I have been backed into a corner, and told that my disapproval is tantamount to heresy. I am to recant my disbelief, or face the Cameron Inquisition. So be it.

Avatar sucked.

Believe it. Or not.

Avatar Review: Damn Pretty, Shame About The Dances With Pocahontas Story Line (inquisitr.com)
Cameron Talks Avatar Trilogy With Entertainment Weekly (screenrant.com)
Avatar Is Like The iPhone Of Movies (techcrunch.com)
Avatar: James Cameron rejects plagiarism claims (telegraph.co.uk)
Fan Rant: Is the Bar Lower for 'Avatar'? (cinematical.com)
The Vatican Thinks Avatar's Trees Can Beat Up God (cinemablend.com)

Monday, December 28, 2009

Avatar Review: Is "Not Bad" Good Enough?

Is “Not Bad” good enough?

That’s really the question when it comes to assessing the quality of Avatar, James Cameron’s first film in over a decade. His first major theatrical release since Titanic, it has been obvious for a long time that Cameron and the studios had every intention of making Avatar as much of a blockbuster epic as its Oscar-winning Leonardo DiCaprio-starring predecessor.

After two successful weekends in the theater, it is now safe to say that it isn’t the bomb some might have feared or hoped for. This was actually evident before the first box office receipts were in, when the short-lived review embargo (usually the first clue that the film is a potential flop) was broken by film critics eager to share their mutual surprise that the film wasn’t this decade’s Ishtar or Heaven’s Gate. Since then there has been a virtual love-fest between the media and the studios, and a $75+ million opening weekend despite a blizzard-hampered East Coast has dispelled any fears that the audiences wouldn’t bite. The mutual consensus: It isn’t bad.

But, again; does Not Bad = Good?

Avatar’s notoriously gargantuan $400+ Million budget actually delivers on its overall promise of over-the-top 3D and special effects. Over half of the film is dominated by advanced CGI-rendered characters, animals and Day-Glo jungle environments. And yes, they are quite amazing. Seen in 3D or 2D, you can see where all the money went. But when it comes to justifying the amount spent, the lines of reason and good taste begin to blur.

The main chorus being sung by the film’s promoters and apologist film critics (speaking of blurred boundaries) is that these are the most realistic CGI rendered characters you will ever see. To paraphrase one of many identical review/interview/commercial spots, the realism invoked by these realistic animated characters is so overwhelming that you will actually come to believe that they are real beings.

This, of course, is a load of crap.

As impressive as these computer generated characters are, there is no point during the film that any rational adult will find themselves wondering how they managed to make the Navi look so real, because they don’t look real; they look like what they are, extremely impressive computer-generated characters. Now, children in the audience might feel differently, but kids aren’t an especially discerning audience. Decades ago, millions of underage film-goers were more than willing to believe that a bunch of midgets in fur suits running around the screen in Return of the Jedi were actually a race of heavily-merchandised half-pint Wookies.

Its called the Suspension of Disbelief, an integral part of the movie-going experience that is not necessarily increased exponentially with the amount of money spent on the effects budget.

As much as the propaganda-heavy news reports and film critic reviews would like you to believe that special effects are what make characters endearing, the truth of the matter is that screenplay and actor performance easily trump that list. In the case of Avatar, the performances are only as good as the special effects and script allows them to be. Considering the weak story presented behind the 3D CGI spectacle, this leaves them all at about half-mast.

The lack of a decent script is almost understandable; when you are completely focused on delivering groundbreaking visuals worthy of a half-billion price tag, you’re going to want to keep your script as lean and simple as possible. And simple it is. Anyone who has ever seen Dances with Wolves, The Last Samurai or Enemy Mine already knows this story (aka Plot #17) inside and out: Main Character battles Good Group on behalf of Evil Group, but eventually indentifies with Good Group and helps them defeat Evil Group. Roll credits.

But again, apologists are eager to claim that the amazingly expensive special effects more than justify the extremely light and simplistic screenplay. After all, the nearly half-billion-dollar special effects made the Navi almost seem like a real race, right? My rebuttal to this nonsense is last year’s surprise sci-fi hit District 9.

In District 9, we have yet another film featuring humans interacting with a computer-generated alien species. Instead of the tall, wasp-waisted Navi (yet another Hollywood attempt at increasing eating disorders in young girls) frolicking in a jungle paradise, District 9’s aliens are giant grubby-looking insectoids, affectionately dubbed "Prawns" by their South African benefactors. Both films feature themes regarding the treatment of foreign races and cultures utilizing metaphoric alien races, but District 9 takes the time to explore the relation and exploitation with more attention paid to the complex nature of such situations, with a storyline and character development that doesn’t feel like a black-and-white storybook parable. It garnered rave reviews, also including the realism and believability of its alien creatures, and went on to earn nearly quadruple its
budget during its American theatrical release.

District 9 might not have been a pillar of originality either, arguably being a remake of Alien Nation. But it still treads on far more philosophical and socially relevant ground than sour-milk-drinking populated pun-titled predecessor. Also, while not achieving the extreme ratio of CGI to real world screen time, District 9 managed to achieve the same level of critical and financial success as Avatar, and with a vastly superior screenplay. Its budget: A measly $30 million, less than a tenth of Avatar’s price tag.

So, does Not Bad mean Good? Not really. It doesn’t necessarily mean Bad either, and considering the money it is bringing in, that’s all that matters. Weighing the amazing visuals against the uninspiring script, the only fair assessment is that the film is just your typical Hollywood mega-budget blockbuster; big on spectacle but lacking in substance, no more or less deserving of its box office totals than Transformers 2 or 2012.

But let’s stop making excuses for the obscene amount of money thrown at what is nothing more than another unforgettable weekend blockbuster extravaganza. As much as the Hollywood elite might feel the need to engage in these annual meg-budget pissing contests, special-effect stroke-fests are no substitute for quality filmmaking. And contrary to popular belief, there is a difference.

Monday, October 19, 2009

Where the Wild Things Aren't

This past weekend, the sleeper hit Paranormal Activity nearly tripled its weekend totals from its opening weekend, grossing over $20 million in third place. At first place was the long-awaited film adaptation of Where the Wild Things Are, one of the most popular kid's books ever published, raking in roughly $32 million.

The numbers all seem to be lined up nicely, with the highly anticipated family film beating out the low-budget horror film. But when you look a bit closer at the numbers, things start to get a bit lopsided. Where the Wild Things Are, with a budget of $100 million, made it to the top of the box office while showing in 3,735 theaters. Paranormal Activity came in about $12 million less, but did so in only 760 theaters. When you do the math, the number one film in the country this past weekend earned almost $9000 per theater, while the little thriller that could earned over $26,000 per theater.

In short, a micro-budgeted horror film about a day-trader's haunted girlfriend outsold a nine-figure adaptation of a legendary work of children's literature at a ratio of nearly three-to-one.

Cover of Where the Wild Things Are

How is this possible? How does a film version of an timeless illustrated classic, beloved and celebrated by multiple generations of young readers, that has spent literally decades trying to desperately make its way to the big screen, get beat out a Blair Witch Project clone that looks like it was shot on a Flip Camera and lit with table lamps? I'll just cut to the chase and give you the answer.

The magic is gone.

In 1977, lines wrapped around theaters and stretched down city blocks as people flocked in droves to witness a futuristic world of galactic empires battling spiritual warriors with laser swords in Star Wars. In 1978, audiences were promised that they would believe a man could fly if the went to see Christopher Reeves star as the Man of Steel in Superman - The Movie. In 1982, young and old alike fell in love with a stray long-necked alien searching for a way back home in E.T. - The Extra-Terrestrial.

These were magical films that made the world stand up and take notice. Not because they were the finest works of cinematic art ever created, but because they filled audiences with a sense of wonder as they watched these fantastic events unfold on screen and wondered how creating such amazing illusions was even possible. These days, we know how possible it is. Its so possible that anyone with an impressive line of credit at Best Buy could cook up comparable effects in their own home using the latest software available. And we are reminded how possible it is because every film intended to be a hit by the studios is so jam-packed full of ultra-realistic over-the-top computer generated special effects that we've come to expect flying men and laser-sword-wielding aliens with a casual nod.

This is not a rant against the advancement of technology. Instead, it is a rant against the laziness of filmmakers who are too eager to let the advancement of technology do all the work. CGI and digital effects have become so common place that they have eased to be awe-inspiring, and have instead turned even the most miraculous translations of spectacular fantasy to the big screen into boring, albeit pretty, slide shows.

This film version of Where the Wild Things Are does a remarkable job of bringing the endearing illustrations of Maurice Sendak to life, creating three-dimensional representations of his cherished fifteen-foot-tall creatures that easily convince the viewer that they are living,

Image by tsmall via Flickr

breathing creatures from some far-away land.

Filmmakers still approach special effects in films the way they did back in the days of Clash of the Titans. The only difference is, audiences have seen it all, and seen it all done with such ease and repetition that it no longer holds their attention, let alone their amazement or awe.

This might not be completely fair when discussing Where the Wild Things Are; while the faces are CGI, the bodies of these giant creatures are animatronic puppets and suits created by the Jim Henson Workshop, and are still indicative of the true craft of special effects that still exists today. But whether or not it deserves it, Where the Wild Things Are is a victim of commonality of computer graphics and their overuse in films. A movie finally comes along that deserves to be sold out for months as children and adults alike flock to theaters to immerse themselves in the wonderment of a fantasy realm brought to life. Instead, the dreamers are being outnumbered by people so starved for something tangibly real that they are willing to shell out $10 or more to watch poorly-lit couple jump and scream every time a door slams or a large boom is heard off-screen.

We have come full circle. The fantastic is now commonplace, while the mundane is extraordinary and captivating. Maybe it will take these financially difficult times to convince our elite but lazy filmmakers of the truth that many American households have learned to live by.

Sometimes, less is more.

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]">

Wednesday, September 16, 2009

January Releases: Legion! Bad movie, armageddon-style!

The trailers have been coming out for some of the bad movies lining up for their spot in the January lineup, where movies go to die. One of these available for advanced screening is Legion.

Legion, the directorial debut of visual effects artist Scott Stewart, feels like an uneasy cross between Pitch Black, Feast, Prophecy, and every other film ever written with the "This woman is the key to the future of Mankind" plot device.

Stewart's visual effects background is clearly evident in the trailer, which makes the film seem like it was written mainly with the special effects in mind, with things like plot and characters just excuses to get to cool scenes of flocks of winged med and Matrix-style slo-mo action sequences.

Yet another example of how CGI is systematically destroying the art of cinema by making feats of onscreen magic less expensive and arduous to create, this trailer screams "We have a HUGE CGI budget, but we can still only afford twelve actors."

Watch, if you dare, and then wait for the coming biblical plague of the Summer of Remakes