Reviews

As you probably already know, 'Avatar' has ground breaking special effects and breathe taking animations. But once you look past the stunning visuals, it lacks originality at its core. It rehashes the plot of previous 'living among the natives' movies and places it in a science fiction setting similar to 'Star Wars.' It heavily borrows from movies like 'The Last of the Mohicans,' 'The New World' and most notably 'Dances with Wolves.' Just like in 'Dances,' the protagonist (Worthington) is sent on a mission to 'the frontier' and gets caught in the conflict between his army and the natives he has made friends with. This simple, familiar story worked magnificently in 'Dances' but only partially works in 'Avatar.' 'Dances' was filled with lush detail, deep characters, excitement, humor and emotional depth. 'Avatar' only completely fulfills the excitement part. The dialogue in 'Avatar' is excruciatingly clichéd and we don't get to know or connect with many of the characters. In 'Avatar' there aren't any great native characters like 'Kicking Bird' or 'Wind in His Hair' (from 'Dances') who we can relate to or even know well enough to care about and remember for a long time. I would say that Lt. Dunbar's (Kevin Costner's) horse Cisco (in "Dances") is more developed than any character in Avatar. It seems that James Cameron got too carried away with all of the great special effects and forgot to write a meaty story. With 162 minutes, you would think this film would have better character development. But still, the story isn't at all bad. It is lean and even weak in some parts, but still has plenty exciting scenes and at least tries to offer some (un-nuanced) social commentary. While I feel that 'Avatar' is highly overrated, it is still a great visual experience, manages to entertain, and leave you with something to think about, even though we've seen the same story before and seen it done much better.

While "Drive" is a decent and occasionally brilliant film, it fails to live up to its rave reviews. The first act of the film (especially the opening scene) is excellent. However, the mood created by the first act quickly turns into an occasionally exciting but clichéd (and unnecessarily gory) bloodbath. I have no problem with graphic violence (it can be used for brilliant dramatic punctuation, like in "The Departed") but here it seems unnecessary and distracting, possibly to make up for the film's plot holes and all too familiar storyline. The tremendously talented cast is mostly wasted here, with Ryan Gosling (who probably has no more than 20 lines of dialogue in the entire film) spending most of the movie with the same dead-pan look on his face, staring pensively into space. Albert Brooks does breathe some life into the film as an unpredictably violent gangster, but it isn't enough to elevate the film's inert and meandering script. The film also fails to build on some intriguing premises introduced in the first act, like the driver's unexplained policy of only allowing his customers (usually criminals) five minutes during getaways. While I was initially blown away by the film's visual flair, in retrospect this film seems like a standard issue revenge movie pretending to be an art movie. It's atmospheric and brilliantly shot, but lacking in the deep philosophical explorations and dramatic tension that it seems to promise.

Arthur Miller's play "The Crucible" is a very important allegory that is as relevant today in the post-9/11 world as it was in the 50's during the height of McCarthyism. Yet despite the relevance of the play, it's hard not to view the movie as a letdown. It has Daniel Day-Lewis (perhaps the greatest active actor) in the lead role and the film's voice of reason John Proctor, but even he can seem to make his character wholly believable. It seems as though nearly every character in the film inhabit roles of symbols, rather than real people. The characters act only to underscore Miller's political commentary rather than to deliver a nuanced study of humanity. Characters so quickly devolve into a state of hysteria that it's nearly impossible to believe. Miller and the film's point with this are to show how mob mentality and the basic human instinct to find a culprit in inexplicable circumstances lead people to behave irrationally. But these scenes are completely inorganic and only serve the film's themes, which badly harms its credibility. Despite the seriousness and intended importance of this film, it's hard to take a film seriously that features a dead-pan Daniel Day- Lewis surrounded by dozens of screaming, hysterical individuals. Unfortunately, this film will likely inspire more unintended giggles than deep conversations about human nature.

The most common criticism of this film is that it's "hard to follow" or "too unconventional." Well, that's exactly the point! The movie is intended to disorient the audience so that we feel the way the protagonist (Guy Pearce) feels with his short-term memory condition. After the opening of the film, it works its way backwards to show how we got to this point. Slowly, the entire plot is shown in flashbacks that reflect the character's 15-minute memory. There is also another "timeline" shot in black in white that happens in chronological order, a true showcase of Nolan's skill as a director. We learn that his wife was killed in a break-in that left him with a head injury leaving his long-term memory intact but unable to make "new" memories. He is bent on catching his wife's killer, which proves to be a difficult task given his condition. Before his memory resets, he takes annotated Polaroid's and tattoos himself with clues to which he is after, and what his situation is. However, this allows for him to be manipulated by those around him, and even himself. In his mostly positive review of the film, Roger Ebert seemed to discover a huge plot hole. How does he remember that he was short-term memory loss if the last thing he remembers is his wife's death? That seems like a legitimate observation that should discredit the film's cleverness. However, his memory of this is triggered by a tattoo on his hand of the name of another man (who becomes very important later) who had the same condition. Anyway… where was I? Oh! "Memento" is a brilliant, mind-mending film that works both as a thriller and a psychological drama. It will undoubtedly receive very different interpretations from viewer to viewer (just like memories in real life). As the protagonist says: "memories...they're just an interpretation, they're not a record."

While much has been made of the depictions of water-boarding in the film that supposedly "condone torture," this film has no political agenda. Depicting torture unflinchingly certainly doesn't amount to an endorsement. However, the film is unevenly paced, overlong and lacking in character development. While I respect the choice to depict "enhanced interrogation" (torture) so viscerally, it takes up far too much screen time in the early going and is not great film making. The rest of the film boils down the hunt for Bin Laden to the persistence of one woman who works for the CIA (known simply as "Maya"). What should have made the film more affecting and personal ultimately weakens it since we never can relate to this under- written character (or any others, really) despite a career best performance from Jessica Chastain. While the film has some terrific set pieces (the real time depiction of the raid itself justifies a viewing) and individual performances (the late great James Gandolfini also has a great role as former Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta), the end result is a bit underwhelming considering all of the hype. "Zero Dark Thirty" is a competent and important film, but not a great one.