My trip through the Wild West recently brought me to the dusty little town of Appaloosa. This 2008 film not only stars Ed Harris, but is also written and produced by him. Being a sucker for westerns, I actually saw this movie when it was released in theaters, but (and I say this at the risk of giving away my opinion of the movie) this movie is also one that has been added to my personal collection.
In many ways, this movie opposes The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly. It is a straightforward plot that leaves cliché and political commentary behind. Harris plays the cool-headed marshal whose major downfall is letting his love interest (Renée Zellweger) cloud his other wise spot-on judgment. But Vigo Mortensen, playing the part of Everett Hitch, steals the show and make my list of all-time best sidekicks. His loyalty to his partner is unusual in its degree as he carefully navigates Cole’s new relationship and the problems it brings for the lawmen-for-hire duo. One of the best quotes in the movie exemplifies the unbreakable bond between the two. Allie (Zellweger’s character) accuses Everett of coming on to her. Everett coolly replies “No, Virgil. I did not.” As Allie begins her protest, Virgil interrupts without hesitation and scolds her saying “No Allie. Everett didn’t do that”
Jeremy Irons gives a very good performance as the villain that goes from rancher outlaw to wealthy lobbyist (I sensed some commentary on current politics) And his looming showdown is a great piece of the falling action.
If you are wanting a shoot ‘em up cowboy flick, you won’t find it here. This film represents the West as it was; a non-glamorous world where justice had to be served.
4 out of 5 Stars
Be sure to tell your friends about us!!!
-Nuss
Back to Back good Comic Sequels?: A Review of Iron Man 2
Monday, May 10, 2010
Now that the dust has settled from the most anticipated opening weekend in quite sometime, I will let you know what I thought of the Marvel sequel, Iron Man 2. I was pumped to get tickets to see it at midnight Thursday night (you the man Woody). The last comic book sequel I saw was The Dark Knight so this one had a lot to live up to…
This one fell short, way short. The story picks up right where it left off after Tony Stark has just announced that he is Iron Man. We are introduced to the main villain, Ivan Vanko (played by Mickey Rourke), right away and his connection to Stark seems promising. You have heard me on my soapbox before about how movies must have a good story and not just great effects. One of the most frustrating things about this one was that it started off with so much potential that was later unreached.
The plot’s central conflict centers around the relationship between the fathers of Vanko and Stark. The two were both friends who worked together to create technology that helped change the world… then Stark had Vanko deported. That’s all we know. There are no flashbacks of the two working together, nothing of toddlers Tony and Ivan growing up as friends, nothing about how the father’s argued over the use of their innovations, nothing. All we know is he was sent back to Russia, and for that, Ivan wants to kill Tony (I can’t say I’ve lived in post-Cold War Russia, but this seems like one heck of a grudge).
Tony’s character has gone off the deep end. Part of what makes the first movie great is the way he balances the line between a cocky genius and an arrogant narcissist. This one leaves the balancing behind. His persona is over-the-top and much of what he does (getting hammered in the suit) doesn’t seem to fit with the rest of what we know about his character. Another deviation from the film’s predecessor is the lack of discussion of the technology that we see at work. When lithium dioxide instantaneously cures Tony’s blood toxicity levels (did anyone else notice it went from 19% to 87% in like half an hour and he didn’t seem to concerned?) or when he constructs a particle collider balanced by a Captain America shield (great Avengers promo) that creates a completely new element, the audience is just supposed to accept what they’ve seen without any explanation. And while we are one the subject, his dad’s life work was hidden in a model city that he knew his son would be able to render digitally on a wall and then virtually dismantle until he discovered a new element that could be created in a matter of hours? I don’t buy it.
While I am being pretty harsh, their were some good parts. Mickey Rourke is great. I’m not sure if he actually got into Vanko’s character or if he played his own crazy self with a Russian accent. Regardless it worked and he is a great comic villain. Scarlett Johansen was forgettable, but replacing Terrence Howard with Don Cheadle was a great move. I am usually not a fan of changing characters in the middle of a franchise, especially comic films (neither is Joey see here). But Cheadle is great (although some of his character’s part in the overall plot don’t make a whole lot of sense either). Don’t even get me started on the crazy magic that transformed Pepper Potts went from a supportive personal assistant to a demanding CEO right before our very eyes.
This film fell into the trap that many sequels do of leeching off of the hype generated by its predecessor. The plot struggled and the character development didn’t seem to sync, but the most troubling part was that it had so much potential! It was an ok movie at best, and I had to be tough on it because I know everyone is going to blindly say that they liked it. Just be glad I didn’t go all PoliSci major on you and rant about the atrocity that was the Congressional hearing in the film’s onset!
1.5 out of 5 Stars
Let me hear how wrong I am about this one (or if you secretly agree, but don’t want to tell your friends). E-mail us at clawandnussreviews@gmail.com. And for those of you who are western enthusiasts, don’t worry, the detour is over…for now.
-Nuss
This one fell short, way short. The story picks up right where it left off after Tony Stark has just announced that he is Iron Man. We are introduced to the main villain, Ivan Vanko (played by Mickey Rourke), right away and his connection to Stark seems promising. You have heard me on my soapbox before about how movies must have a good story and not just great effects. One of the most frustrating things about this one was that it started off with so much potential that was later unreached.
The plot’s central conflict centers around the relationship between the fathers of Vanko and Stark. The two were both friends who worked together to create technology that helped change the world… then Stark had Vanko deported. That’s all we know. There are no flashbacks of the two working together, nothing of toddlers Tony and Ivan growing up as friends, nothing about how the father’s argued over the use of their innovations, nothing. All we know is he was sent back to Russia, and for that, Ivan wants to kill Tony (I can’t say I’ve lived in post-Cold War Russia, but this seems like one heck of a grudge).
Tony’s character has gone off the deep end. Part of what makes the first movie great is the way he balances the line between a cocky genius and an arrogant narcissist. This one leaves the balancing behind. His persona is over-the-top and much of what he does (getting hammered in the suit) doesn’t seem to fit with the rest of what we know about his character. Another deviation from the film’s predecessor is the lack of discussion of the technology that we see at work. When lithium dioxide instantaneously cures Tony’s blood toxicity levels (did anyone else notice it went from 19% to 87% in like half an hour and he didn’t seem to concerned?) or when he constructs a particle collider balanced by a Captain America shield (great Avengers promo) that creates a completely new element, the audience is just supposed to accept what they’ve seen without any explanation. And while we are one the subject, his dad’s life work was hidden in a model city that he knew his son would be able to render digitally on a wall and then virtually dismantle until he discovered a new element that could be created in a matter of hours? I don’t buy it.
While I am being pretty harsh, their were some good parts. Mickey Rourke is great. I’m not sure if he actually got into Vanko’s character or if he played his own crazy self with a Russian accent. Regardless it worked and he is a great comic villain. Scarlett Johansen was forgettable, but replacing Terrence Howard with Don Cheadle was a great move. I am usually not a fan of changing characters in the middle of a franchise, especially comic films (neither is Joey see here). But Cheadle is great (although some of his character’s part in the overall plot don’t make a whole lot of sense either). Don’t even get me started on the crazy magic that transformed Pepper Potts went from a supportive personal assistant to a demanding CEO right before our very eyes.
This film fell into the trap that many sequels do of leeching off of the hype generated by its predecessor. The plot struggled and the character development didn’t seem to sync, but the most troubling part was that it had so much potential! It was an ok movie at best, and I had to be tough on it because I know everyone is going to blindly say that they liked it. Just be glad I didn’t go all PoliSci major on you and rant about the atrocity that was the Congressional hearing in the film’s onset!
1.5 out of 5 Stars
Let me hear how wrong I am about this one (or if you secretly agree, but don’t want to tell your friends). E-mail us at clawandnussreviews@gmail.com. And for those of you who are western enthusiasts, don’t worry, the detour is over…for now.
-Nuss
The Bad, The Worst, and The Ugly
Tuesday, May 4, 2010
My next stop on my tour of classic movies may cause me to detour into another genre for a little while.
The movie was the Clint Eastwood classic The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly. For as long as I can remember I have been a sucker for a good western. Maybe its because of the intrinsic nature of man to live a life un-tethered in a search to find their identity or maybe its just because I like the idea of wearing cowboy hats and shooting stuff. Whatever the reason is that they intrigue me, I am going to explore a few westerns over my next couple of reviews, so please shoot (pun intended) me a message if there is one you think that I MUST review.
The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly is a classic spaghetti-western, so named because of its Italian director. Originally, much of the dialogue was shot in Italian, which explains why so much of the talking does not sync up with the moving mouths. The film is actually the third in a trilogy of movies, the first two being A Fistful of Dollars and A Few Dollars More. It also is widely considered one of the best westerns of all-time and Quentin Tarantino went so far as to call it the “best directed movie of all-time” regardless of genre. What better place to start my journey?
To be honest, I was underwhelmed. Once again, my main beef was with the plot. The movie is very long (three hours), but the plot is extremely simple and much of the movie could have been omitted. “The Good,” played by Clint Eastwood, was good in name alone. He was a double-crossing grave robbing bounty hunter, not exactly the typical protagonist of the genre. Eastwood is great as the cocksure quick-drawing outlaw and is full of to-the-point one liners (my favorite being “There are two kinds of people in the world, those with loaded guns and those with shovels”). “The Ugly” was a loutish bandito who actually teams up with Eastwood (after they leave each other for dead a couple of times) to find buried treasure. “The Bad,” played by Lee Van Cleef, was probably my favorite character. He’s a smooth murderer who has no problem with disposing of anyone and everyone. I think in all honesty, Eastwood’s character should have been deemed “The Bad” and maybe Van Cleef’s could have been “The Worst.”
The plot is held together by a great soundtrack and the quintessential sounds that we now associate with the genre as a whole. The director also clearly goes out of his way to criticize the Civil War as a waste of human life and goes to great lengths in an attempt to vilify the North. The climatic three-way shootout was original, but it could not make up for the tongue-in-cheek style that characterized the rest of the film.
All-in-all it was fun to watch Clint Eastwood, but this isn’t one to watch again and again. I know you are probably getting tired of me saying it, but stories drive movies, and this one wasn’t the best. I know I am probably upsetting the masses with this one, but it wasn’t my favorite.
3 stars out of 5
As always, we love to hear your comments on our blog. Send us an e-mail at clawandnussreviews@gmail.com or just give us a shoutout on facebook. Tell all your firends about us and make sure to check back soon for the next stop on my journey through the wild wild west.
-Nuss
The movie was the Clint Eastwood classic The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly. For as long as I can remember I have been a sucker for a good western. Maybe its because of the intrinsic nature of man to live a life un-tethered in a search to find their identity or maybe its just because I like the idea of wearing cowboy hats and shooting stuff. Whatever the reason is that they intrigue me, I am going to explore a few westerns over my next couple of reviews, so please shoot (pun intended) me a message if there is one you think that I MUST review.
The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly is a classic spaghetti-western, so named because of its Italian director. Originally, much of the dialogue was shot in Italian, which explains why so much of the talking does not sync up with the moving mouths. The film is actually the third in a trilogy of movies, the first two being A Fistful of Dollars and A Few Dollars More. It also is widely considered one of the best westerns of all-time and Quentin Tarantino went so far as to call it the “best directed movie of all-time” regardless of genre. What better place to start my journey?
To be honest, I was underwhelmed. Once again, my main beef was with the plot. The movie is very long (three hours), but the plot is extremely simple and much of the movie could have been omitted. “The Good,” played by Clint Eastwood, was good in name alone. He was a double-crossing grave robbing bounty hunter, not exactly the typical protagonist of the genre. Eastwood is great as the cocksure quick-drawing outlaw and is full of to-the-point one liners (my favorite being “There are two kinds of people in the world, those with loaded guns and those with shovels”). “The Ugly” was a loutish bandito who actually teams up with Eastwood (after they leave each other for dead a couple of times) to find buried treasure. “The Bad,” played by Lee Van Cleef, was probably my favorite character. He’s a smooth murderer who has no problem with disposing of anyone and everyone. I think in all honesty, Eastwood’s character should have been deemed “The Bad” and maybe Van Cleef’s could have been “The Worst.”
The plot is held together by a great soundtrack and the quintessential sounds that we now associate with the genre as a whole. The director also clearly goes out of his way to criticize the Civil War as a waste of human life and goes to great lengths in an attempt to vilify the North. The climatic three-way shootout was original, but it could not make up for the tongue-in-cheek style that characterized the rest of the film.
All-in-all it was fun to watch Clint Eastwood, but this isn’t one to watch again and again. I know you are probably getting tired of me saying it, but stories drive movies, and this one wasn’t the best. I know I am probably upsetting the masses with this one, but it wasn’t my favorite.
3 stars out of 5
As always, we love to hear your comments on our blog. Send us an e-mail at clawandnussreviews@gmail.com or just give us a shoutout on facebook. Tell all your firends about us and make sure to check back soon for the next stop on my journey through the wild wild west.
-Nuss
A Trip to the Golden Age: A Review of the Maltese Falcon
Wednesday, April 28, 2010
Recently my mom said, “James, you have an eclectic taste in music.” Admittedly, I like a wide variety of music from country to 80’s pop and rock to Disney soundtracks to angry female pop stars (i.e. Alanis Morissette and Pink) and all sorts of other genres in between. But at the very top of my list is “The Chairman of the Board” himself, Frank Sinatra. I love Old Blue Eyes and the rest of the Rat Pack, not only their music, but their movies and their style. This past Christmas, my sister (shoutout to Julie) gave me a book called “The Way You Wear Your Hat.” It was a book about Sinatra’s “art of living.” Needless to say, I finished it before our New Year’s Day bowl game. The book discusses how Sinatra idolized prominent Hollywood actor and icon, Humphrey Bogart. Intrigued, I decided to add some Bogart films to my Netflix queue, and before I knew it The Maltese Falcon was in my mailbox.
The Maltese Falcon is a classic black and white detective film. It follows private detective Sam Spade (Bogart) as he becomes entangled in a web of greed for a jewel encrusted bird statue. The plot is confusing at times as Sam (and the viewer) tries to sift through the lies and alibis from the various players. I really enjoyed watching a film from the Golden Age of Hollywood and loved diving into the culture and style of the 1940s.
Bogart eloquently portrays a strong-willed, fast-talking PI. At times, I found his dialogue almost cryptic as the fast talking mixed with the mystery of the case, lies from the supporting cast, and the cant of the 1940s. The main broad (in the 40s this didn’t have the negative connotation that it does now so I can use it, what a great word) is typical to her gender in that I had not idea what was going on with her ever. Her emotions and disposition changed more often than Ricky Henderson changed pro teams.
The mystery plot and classic style make for a fun watch even though I wasn’t always in step with the storyline. This detective classic filled with henchmen, murders, and an affair is a one you should watch if you have an affinity for the 40s. Its major downfall is a somewhat unsatisfying resolution, but it’s still a movie that Bogart and even Sinatra fans alike should check out. It could be “the start of a beautiful friendship.”
-Nuss
3 out of 5 stars
Hope you enjoyed the review. Please comment below our shoot us an e-mail with your thoughts at clawandnussreviews@gmail.com. Also, follow us on twitter @CLAWtomicBAUM and as always tell your friends about us.
The Maltese Falcon is a classic black and white detective film. It follows private detective Sam Spade (Bogart) as he becomes entangled in a web of greed for a jewel encrusted bird statue. The plot is confusing at times as Sam (and the viewer) tries to sift through the lies and alibis from the various players. I really enjoyed watching a film from the Golden Age of Hollywood and loved diving into the culture and style of the 1940s.
Bogart eloquently portrays a strong-willed, fast-talking PI. At times, I found his dialogue almost cryptic as the fast talking mixed with the mystery of the case, lies from the supporting cast, and the cant of the 1940s. The main broad (in the 40s this didn’t have the negative connotation that it does now so I can use it, what a great word) is typical to her gender in that I had not idea what was going on with her ever. Her emotions and disposition changed more often than Ricky Henderson changed pro teams.
The mystery plot and classic style make for a fun watch even though I wasn’t always in step with the storyline. This detective classic filled with henchmen, murders, and an affair is a one you should watch if you have an affinity for the 40s. Its major downfall is a somewhat unsatisfying resolution, but it’s still a movie that Bogart and even Sinatra fans alike should check out. It could be “the start of a beautiful friendship.”
-Nuss
3 out of 5 stars
Hope you enjoyed the review. Please comment below our shoot us an e-mail with your thoughts at clawandnussreviews@gmail.com. Also, follow us on twitter @CLAWtomicBAUM and as always tell your friends about us.
The first ever joint review! (As requested by Pete Hewitt): Avatar
Thursday, April 22, 2010
So here is part two of our first ever joint review. If you didn't get a chance, check out Joey's post from yesterday. Happy Earth Day, hope you enjoy our review!
When I first saw the trailer for Avatar, I was intrigued if nothing else. It reminded me of the first time that I saw a trailer for Mel Gibson’s Apocalypto (and they were actually more similar than I then realized). Although it fascinated me on some levels, it was not enough to make my “must-see list.” I had already seen a 3D movie (Toy Story 1&2 Double Feature was amazing and I can’t wait for 3 to come out in June), and I assumed that some of the novelty of the new style would wear off with my second three-dimensional experience. So, even though I very much enjoy and prefer to see movies on their opening weekend, I did not see Avatar its first, second, or even third weekend in theaters.
Soon after the hype surrounded me. Facebook status updates ranged from “this changed my life” to “I’m seeing Avatar for the 4th time (in three weeks) tomorrow.” My friends’ recommendations varied anywhere from “awesome” to “you’ll hate it.” I decided that I owed it to myself as a fan of film and amateur movie critic (soon to be professional) to check it out. I had seen Jurassic Park and imagined that James Cameron would again attempt to create an environment that evoked a sense of wonder, and I had been warned that some thought the film had a somewhat liberal agenda, but other than that I did not know what to expect. And I like it that way, free to form my own opinions.
Avatar is truly a testament to human creativity and imagination. The way that Cameron created not only a new setting, but a new culture and very world, was in many ways like the Star Wars and Lord of the Rings franchises (some of my all-time favorites). The spectacle and cinematography are phenomenal. The viewer is immersed into another time and place. The attention to details and creative ingenuity are so convincing that I found myself forgetting that what I was watching was largely computer generated and not live-action. Everything from the creatures that roamed the jungles to the very scientific laws that govern life were constructed anew. And it was fascinating.
That being said, in many ways I am throwback. I believe that at the essence of film and movie making is the art of storytelling. It is at the very core of what movies should be about. Unfortunately, this story has been told ten times over. Without the basic premise of Avatars, the Pocahontas story is not a whole lot different. The writer was determined to make humans look like inconsiderate pigs and the knocks on capitalism were overt and unhindered. One of the best examples of that is the unreasonably over-the-top character of Colonel Miles Quaritch (see scene where he punches Sully after opening the simulator). The mineral they are trying to ‘obtain’ is called ‘unobtainium’ for crying out loud. Furthermore, there were clearly measures taken to insure that the indigenous people resembled Native Americans, explaining both why parts originally reminded me of Apocalypto and why some are placing it in the genre of sci-fi western.
While I have stated my grievances with the plot, all-in-all, it is a good movie. Avatar is engaging in a way that few movies are, but still leaves something to be desired. If the hype generates the sequels and possibly trilogy that rumors speculate about, I will definitely go to see them (and this time I won’t wait until week four). Hopefully with another shot, they will get the fundamental story aspect right.
4 stars out of 5
Hey guys, let us know what you think. If you think our blog is lame, tell us. If you actually enjoy reading it, tell us that too. You can comment below or shoot us an email at clawandnussreviews@gmail.com Let us know what you think or if there is a movie you are just dying to hear our opinion on. And don't forget to tell all your friends to check us out.
Thanks and check back soon for a review of a Humprhey Bogart Classic.
-Nuss
When I first saw the trailer for Avatar, I was intrigued if nothing else. It reminded me of the first time that I saw a trailer for Mel Gibson’s Apocalypto (and they were actually more similar than I then realized). Although it fascinated me on some levels, it was not enough to make my “must-see list.” I had already seen a 3D movie (Toy Story 1&2 Double Feature was amazing and I can’t wait for 3 to come out in June), and I assumed that some of the novelty of the new style would wear off with my second three-dimensional experience. So, even though I very much enjoy and prefer to see movies on their opening weekend, I did not see Avatar its first, second, or even third weekend in theaters.
Soon after the hype surrounded me. Facebook status updates ranged from “this changed my life” to “I’m seeing Avatar for the 4th time (in three weeks) tomorrow.” My friends’ recommendations varied anywhere from “awesome” to “you’ll hate it.” I decided that I owed it to myself as a fan of film and amateur movie critic (soon to be professional) to check it out. I had seen Jurassic Park and imagined that James Cameron would again attempt to create an environment that evoked a sense of wonder, and I had been warned that some thought the film had a somewhat liberal agenda, but other than that I did not know what to expect. And I like it that way, free to form my own opinions.
Avatar is truly a testament to human creativity and imagination. The way that Cameron created not only a new setting, but a new culture and very world, was in many ways like the Star Wars and Lord of the Rings franchises (some of my all-time favorites). The spectacle and cinematography are phenomenal. The viewer is immersed into another time and place. The attention to details and creative ingenuity are so convincing that I found myself forgetting that what I was watching was largely computer generated and not live-action. Everything from the creatures that roamed the jungles to the very scientific laws that govern life were constructed anew. And it was fascinating.
That being said, in many ways I am throwback. I believe that at the essence of film and movie making is the art of storytelling. It is at the very core of what movies should be about. Unfortunately, this story has been told ten times over. Without the basic premise of Avatars, the Pocahontas story is not a whole lot different. The writer was determined to make humans look like inconsiderate pigs and the knocks on capitalism were overt and unhindered. One of the best examples of that is the unreasonably over-the-top character of Colonel Miles Quaritch (see scene where he punches Sully after opening the simulator). The mineral they are trying to ‘obtain’ is called ‘unobtainium’ for crying out loud. Furthermore, there were clearly measures taken to insure that the indigenous people resembled Native Americans, explaining both why parts originally reminded me of Apocalypto and why some are placing it in the genre of sci-fi western.
While I have stated my grievances with the plot, all-in-all, it is a good movie. Avatar is engaging in a way that few movies are, but still leaves something to be desired. If the hype generates the sequels and possibly trilogy that rumors speculate about, I will definitely go to see them (and this time I won’t wait until week four). Hopefully with another shot, they will get the fundamental story aspect right.
4 stars out of 5
Hey guys, let us know what you think. If you think our blog is lame, tell us. If you actually enjoy reading it, tell us that too. You can comment below or shoot us an email at clawandnussreviews@gmail.com Let us know what you think or if there is a movie you are just dying to hear our opinion on. And don't forget to tell all your friends to check us out.
Thanks and check back soon for a review of a Humprhey Bogart Classic.
-Nuss
AvatarRIFIC
Wednesday, April 21, 2010
What’s up y’all? A while back, one of our good friends Pete Hewitt (Hi, Pete) asked for Nuss and I to do a Review of an unknown, underground flick called Avatar. After searching high and low to find a theatre that was screening this prequel to the Blue Man Group, I was finally able to find a theatre to screen this film (You’ll have to ask James how he came across it, but I am sure he had to pirate it). In honor of this movie’s upcoming DVD release we have decided to give our reviews on Avatar.
All jokes aside from the paragraph above, it is hard not to say you loved a movie that was far and away the highest grossing film of all time. If you have yet to see this movie, you are depriving your eyes of seeing something phenomenal. In the words of one of my good friends, this movie arouses your eyes (ok, so what he said was a little more graphic. Follow this guy on twitter to find out what the saying really is. I’m sure he will be happy to tell you).
Avatar is a ground breaking film that visually captures it audience and then some. The scene where Sully first gets in the Avatar body (that’s what she said) is when my jaw dropped. I would like to note that I say my jaw dropped because I saw it in IMAX 3D (If you chose to see this movie on a regular movie screen, be sure to pick Avatar up on VHS tomorrow and not Blu-Ray). I actually got a little buzz seeing Sully in this scene, I felt like I was him. Like I hadn’t been able to walk in years, and suddenly I could outrun Usain Bolt and put Lebron James on a poster. If there is ever a way to get a high from watching a movie, then this movie comes close.
It is really hard for me to actually talk about the plot of the movie because:
A.) I saw it months ago
B.) I blacked out from having my eyes penetrated by flying bird thingies, plants, and other weird creatures
But, I will do my best to provide you with a little insight to what my thoughts are.
The Avatar is a superior species to the human race. Needless to say, they would dominate the Purple Parrots in a head-to-head Legends of the Hidden Temple (What now, Omec?). While on the subject of the Avatars one must wonder WHY James Cameron chose to spend 500 Million dollars to make this movie. I mean, I get it, but doesn’t he know there was a way to cut cost efficiently in these troubling times in our economy. He could have looked to real life people to cast as the role of Avatars by plugging NBA players into those roles. Some names that pop into my head are:
1.) Demar Derozan: Rookie for the Toronto Raptors
2.) Chris Bosh: All-Star in our hearts and for the Raptors
3.) Marquis Daniels: Former Pacer (Traded away most likely based on race)
If that is not enough, heck, even a little make-up could have done the trick on people who don’t have the natural Avatar beauty. Take a look at this website to see what just a little computer editing can do to some of your favorite Hollywood stars….
Everyone’s little gripe about this movie (I guess you have to point out a negative in everything) is that the storyline is predictable and it has already been done (via Pocahontas, Ferngully, Dances with Wolves, Teen Wolf Too, etc.). My argument is what hasn’t been done? That’s like saying you don’t like the iPad because we already have laptops. Or what would the world be like today if we said ha, why would I want to carry a phone around in my pocket all the time when I have one at the house? It’s True, Martin Lawrence getting fired from being a Pro coach and being forced to coach a middle school team in the movie Rebound was a new storyline, but that doesn’t mean it was better than Avatar (it’s a close call, you be the judge). The fact of the matter is anymore, from a storyline standpoint, it’s been done. So Cameron went outside the plot to create something new and he achieved that (Look at his track record and it’s safe to say the man knows what he is doing). He took something that has already been done and made it better.
My one minor gripe with this movie is the awkward sex scene between two Avatars. I found myself asking questions in my head that I didn’t want answers too… I hope on the DVD release that there will not be an unrated sex scene because I fear my questions will be answered (I can see my nightmares already).
Another future gripe could be will Avatar be as good in the privacy of our own homes? A lot of the excitement of this movie came from seeing the film in IMAX 3D. People were yelling OHHHHH DAMN during the ‘in your face’ battle scenes (This literally happened during my viewing of the film). I just worry I will be a little let down when I watch it the second time because I fell in love with the visual effects more so than the storyline (like most people).
In closing, I enjoyed myself. I almost got high off the visuals of watching a movie that wasn’t Cheech and Chong or Half Baked. I am excited to see what Cameron has to offer me next.
4.5/5 Claws
We hope you enjoyed our reviews. And always remember, if you didn’t enjoy it, unlike Ben Roethlesberger’s victims, your voice matters to us (It’s called consent Benny). So hit us with some feedback @ clawandnussreviews@gmail.com and we will be sure not to ‘hit’ you back a la Chris Brown. Follow us on twitter @CLAWtomicBAUM and as always tell your friends about us.
And I’m out,
-#0 The Claw
Political Science 320 The American Presidency…. and Air Force One
Sunday, April 18, 2010
As a PoliSci major, I am taking the last class that I need in order to complete my major, The American Presidency. Up until this point, most of what I know about the President has come from my own personal analysis of David Palmer’s actions of Fox’s soon to be finished series 24. So last night when I turned on Air Force One, it was in no way for entertainment. Rather, I deemed it my homework for the night. I would learn about the president from watching Harrison Ford in action rather than reading my textbook.
Needless to say I learned almost nothing. I took some notes on things I may want to do before I run for President (win a Medal of Honor, learn to disarm terrorists with my bare hands, etc.), but more seriously the film did address some relevant political questions such as the differentiation between the President and the presidency as well as the invocation of the 25th Amendment. Other than that it was much more of an action film than a political thriller. Listening to Nelly’s same named hit single for two hours would have been nearly as beneficial to my grades.
President James Marshall (Ford) is what I think Die Hard’s John McClane would vote for in a Presidential election. He speaks his mind, is a man’s man, and has no tolerance for heavy-accented terrorists. However, the many aspects of the film are even more farfetched than Die Hard (I know, hard to believe). I would love for Mythbusters to tear this one apart.
Ford, overall, does a good job. As do Gary Oldman and Glenn Close. However, the First Lady, Wendy Crewson (the mom from The Santa Clause) is awful. She’s worse than Willie Mays Hayes as Black Hammer (if you have no idea what I’m talking about revisit my Top 5 Baseball Movies). Not once was I convinced of her fake emotions in the high stress situation. Apparently it’s much harder to be the President’s wife than being Old St. Nick’s ex-wife. Who knew?
Overall the plot in the movie was adequate and some of the action was a fun ride. If nothing else, the Russian terrorists reminded me why I’m rooting against the Washington Capitals in the Stanley Cup Playoffs. Unfortunately, I don’t think it will help me for next week’s midterm. Back to Article II of the Constitution….
3 stars out of 5
-Nuss
3 stars out of 5
-Nuss
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
