Avatar

Entertainment: 5/5

Cinemtatic: 5/5

I read somewhere that James Cameron tried about ten years ago, after Titanic, to get studios to pick up Avatar, but was waiting for CGI to be a tad bit more advanced. When Peter Jackson's, Lord of the Rings came out in 2002, James Cameron knew the time had come. CG was finally there. And so, seven years later, he graced us with an all-star cast (and when I say all-star, I mean they were all great),and a touching and action-packed movie about destroying home.

If there's one thing I've learned about creating "art", if you will let me indulge, it is that it tells a story. Designers, actors, directors, et all come together to create a story. Theoretically, each element should be as strong as the next. While the computer graphics of this movie totally dominated; I would argue that you didn't walk away with the moral of the story being: CGI has come so far-- there was a deeper meaning to the piece that captured my heart the way I never believed an action movie could.

While the piece clearly had "lead actors", each character (in terms of the writing) became a central part in moving the story along.

I saw the movie in IMAX-3D, twice. Both times, I was stunned. The movie itself isn't a mind-blowing 3D experience, but it definitely amped things up in the theatre. The CGI looks real. Imagine the Disney Classics revamped in 3D.

I don't want to give too much about or of the movie away like some reviews do. There's a plot synopsis that ends just before the climax-- quite unfulfilling. The movie is quite long, so make sure you go to the bathroom before it starts and maybe don't get a large slurpee. But, be smart enough to find the parallels between now and the future (it's not hard) and be sure to enjoy the lasting impression it has made in the history of cinema. Seriously, it's groundbreaking.

Neo-Decadent Value: The piece was fantastical, beautiful, witty and relevant to today. There was a beauty in the way characters spoke to each other, their point of views, the fantastical quality of creating not just another world, but a world in which there are rules to follow. There was a happy ending, but not without sacrifice.

4/5. I believe Neo-Decadents can have work be relevant of today while looking to both the future and the past for inspiration. The movement isn't about "going back" to something-- it's about re-imagining Romanticism in the Post-Modern world.

Up In The Air

Entertainment: 3/5

Cinematic: 3/5

Smart and witty. But did it deserve all the rave it got?

I went to see this movie with my parents and my Dad walked out halfway through saying, "See you later, dudes. This is a chick flick." And I had to agree with him. I truly enjoyed the movie, but I didn't understand what all the hype was about it. "The story of a man trying to make a connection." And he did, I suppose.

The whole point of the movie was to explore what it means to have a relationship with someone: as a mentor, as an employee, as a human being- and what happens when relationships are broken. With the recess of our economy as the main antagonist of the film it caused a great amount of conflict, but not necessarily between the characters. It became an environmental factor.

George Clooney was charming and witty, Vera Farmiga beautiful and mysterious- you could understand why Clooney's character fell for her care-free, non chalant spirit so easily and Anna Kendrick was delightful as the uptight, straight out of college, know-it-all who accompanies Clooney as he trains her in his tricks of the trade.

The story was about people, about the characters but no huge kodak moments come to mind. Perhaps the poster (see above) and the moment when Kendrick refers to Clooney as being old (the old fashioned mirror trick)- but none else. Looking at the trailer, however, we might say that the production team did a good job with composition without making it the be all and end all of it's own artistry and by that I mean, compared to Nine, composition became an element of the environment, not for the sake of creating a pretty picture. The composition helped reveal character. Sense or senseless? Dwell on that for a bit.

The birdseye shots of every city got dull after a while, as well as the captions going along with it. The audience already understands that he travels, I hate it when people pull the "stupid audience" card (see review on Nine for explanation.)

This is a story of a man who needs to take his own advice.

Neo-Decadant value: The movie was smart, witty, but the ending was an obvious one. I walked away with the notion that shit happens, we get burned, and yet we keep living. And there's nothing more we can do.

2/5. The sublime is never reached and if it is, they make sure to douse it in American cynicism.

Invictus

Entertainment: 3/5

Cinematic: 3/5

Two well known American actors playing two well known South African heroes.

The movie takes us back to the 90's in South Africa when Nelson Mandela is elected President. Rarely do we see movies about mental segregation in these times. Taking place in Post-Apartheid, politically a small minority of White South Africans holding power has just been overthrown by the majority of Black South Africans reclaiming the homeland with more cultural demands than blood revenge. Lucky for us, Mandela is more of a Martin Luther King, Jr. than Malcom X.

The incomparable Morgan Freeman stars as Mandela and the talented Mr. Matt Damon as the captain of the South African rugby team, Francois Pinnear. In order to unite White and Black South Africans, he enlists the help of Francois to win the World Cup. The story takes us on a journey of the power of acceptance, understanding and cooperation in a time when taking the middle ground makes you an exile to either side of the spectrum.

Damon's accent was flawless while Freeman's leaves much to be desired. With an infamous voice, dialect and speech patter, it was often difficult to see Freeman as Mandela and not himself.

Neo-Decadant Value: The movie explores the joy in having people put aside differences and unite under one flag, or one team. Putting away political alliances or beliefs and allowing the love of a country overcome all forms of discrimination.

3/5. The ideals are there. They manifested in belief in a sports team to win. But the belief makes it sublime. The belief makes it Romantic.

Nine

Entertainment: 3/5

Cinematic Value: 2/5

Not Rob Marshall's best work. Chicago put him on the map as the go-to guy to make musicals accessible to the general non-theatre going public, Dreamgirls proved that he was on a winning streak, but with the make of Nine, Rob Marshall might be proving that Hollywood is getting the better of him.

An all-star cast with mediocre singing talent and range; What they didn't have in musical knowledge they made up with acting. People may be raving about it because these stars don't get a lot of exposure in terms of singing, but there were some starry surprises.

Fergie can act? Who knew. "Be Italian" was the show-stopper. Kate Hudson can sing? Well, Goldie Hawn DID play Maria in West Side Story back in high school. Talent just runs in that family. Judi Dench manages to charm past all flaws of her performance. You barely notice them. Penelope Cruz is fiesty, as always-- but couldn't understand a word she sang. "Unusual Way" is too difficult a song for Nicole Kidman's straight-tone to tackle, Sophia Loren just smiles and lights up the stage. Not much more than that though. Daniel Day-Lewis, talented actor that he is, should've spent more time on his accent and Marion Cotillard was robbed of her moments throughout the whole piece.

Why? Because Rob Marshall has created a niche in which songs are never sung aloud for others to hear-- they are cabarets inside characters heads. The shots during songs shift back and forth between real time and character-thought-time that you don't get enough of the musicality and dramatic sweeps of the piece. At a certain point in the musical, it should be difficult for Guido to distinguish what is real and what is not, "his interior world sometimes becoming indistinguishable from the objective world " (Wikipedia. Reliable source.)

In every musical number, Daniel Day-Lewis was seen. Perhaps, the musical numbers were in his mind? Does he think of his whole life as one huge film? Definitely. But then, that downsizes the agency of the women in the piece, and that I do not like one bit. The problem is, the worlds never collided-- we never truly saw what the consequences were of Guido seeing the world in this way. Yes, his marriage is strained; yes, he is thinking about all the other women in his life; yes, he cannot write this film. But perhaps there is more to Guido's madness that could be translated that Rob Marshall did not do.

But, imagining the piece in the theatre wouldn't be too bad. The impulses were too big for the screen. Film is supposed to scale down the beauty of the world into one shot-- for me, the world was too big. Translated onto the stage, the huge wash of black with just a spotlight on Guido would've been more effective on stage than on screen. Or, when Fergie and the ensemble pull tambourines out of the sand-- in film, the element of surprise is lost on screen. Imagine if "Be Italian" had been performed live, right in front of you, and out of nowhere tambourines rise from the sand where they hadn't been before... I would be wildly impressed!

Perhaps my review is too harsh? I just think that if you're going to make a musical for film, you need to fully understand what it takes to create a musical and what it takes to create a film. In a medium where reality and naturalism are the proponents of the form, breaking out into song and dance does not go over well. Something is broken in the audience's mind. Rob Marshall has done a wonderful job in the past of bridging the gap between the theatricality of the stage, downsized onto one small frame of film-- but this time, I think he should've explored other ways of approaching the piece without the same old tricks.

Neo-Decadent Value: If Rob Marshall had treated the piece with less modern tactics (speaking to the "stupid audience": a mindset or tool in which creators answer many questions through symbols, motifs, etc.), the piece may have been more stimulating in terms of thinking about the way artists see their lives alongside with their work. What are the consequences? What is the beauty?

We'll go with 1/5. The piece did create some beautiful pictures.