Sunday Update 6/13/10

Hey everybody.  Just a quick update today.  First, I wanted to thank everyone for their comments on Trilogy Week.  It's great to know what you're thinking.  You can look forward to another video mailbag covering the comments in more detail later this week.

This week I'll be looking at movies based on graphic novels.  I'll be focusing on graphic novels by Alan Moore and Frank Miller.  If you're looking to get a head start on the movies, check out Watchmen, Sin City, and V for Vendetta.  There may be a couple of others as well.

Also, this week I'm having a six-movie marathon with two of my best friends.  It's a tradition that's been going on for seven years, to celebrate our birthdays.  (We're all born within ten days of each other.)  We call it the Movie Film Festival.  I may provide a recap of that later in the week as well.

Until next time,
-Harry

Trilogy Week Part 3

Hey everybody, and welcome to the conclusion of Trilogy Week.  Today I'm going to reveal my all-time most marathonable trilogy.  Before I do I'll quickly recap the week:
I'm counting down the top 5 most marathonable trilogies.  Not necessarily best, but most marathonable.  That is, the best to watch back-to-back-to-back.  Before you ask, I'll just tell you that yes, I have marathoned all five of these trilogies.  So far we have:

5. The Lord of the Rings
4. The Ocean's trilogy
3. Indiana Jones
2. Star Wars

And here it is, the one you've all been waiting for...

The Jason Bourne Trilogy

Consisting of The Bourne Identity, (directed by Doug Liman,) The Bourne Supremacy, (Paul Greengrass,) and The Bourne Ultimatum, (also Paul Greengrass,) the Bourne trilogy follows the adventures of the elite spy Jason Bourne as he travels across the globe in search of clues to his troubling and mysterious past.

So what makes it so marathonable?  First of all, all three movies are independently awesome.  They all have intensity and action to spare, and the stories and dialog are impressive.  The cast, led by Matt Damon, but also featuring many other great actors such as Chris Cooper, Clive Owen, Brian Cox, Julia Stiles, Joan Allen, David Strathairn and more, all turn in great performances.  The soundtracks are also excellent.

But three great movies does not a marathonable trilogy make.  They have to have a connection to each other.  And that's where the Bourne trilogy excels.  There are tons of tiny visuals and throwaway lines that link the movies to each other.  Also, their timeline overlaps, making watching them in sequence very easy while keeping all of the plots understandable.

These three movies function as a trilogy better than any other three on the list, with the possible exception of Lord of the Rings.  But the Bourne trilogy moves along at a much more brisk pace, making it significantly easier to marathon, and also making it a more engaging experience.  There is zero dead time in all three films.  If you leave the room even for a second, you'll probably miss something important.

So there you have it, my top five.  Feel free to sound off in the comments section.  I'd love to hear what your top five are, and why.  That's all for trilogy week folks.  I sure hope you liked it.

Until next time,
-Harry

P.S.  There are two honorable mentions for this list.  The Godfather trilogy, omitted because of its length and lack of a quality third film, and the Beverly Hills Cop trilogy, omitted because it's just too damn silly.

Trilogy Week Part 2

Hey everybody, and welcome to part two of Trilogy Week.  If you haven't read the first post of the week, I'll give you the quick summary.  First of all, I'm not reviewing trilogies based strictly on quality.  I'm reviewing them based on their ability to be watched in a marathon.  I find that movie marathons are one of the most rewarding ways to spend an day/night, so that's what I'm going with.  I'm counting down the five most marathonable movie trilogies of all time.  The fifth was The Lord of the Rings and the fourth was the Ocean's trilogy.  So without further ado:

Marathonable Trilogy Number 3 - Indiana Jones

Yes, I know.  It's not a trilogy anymore.  I don't care, because I do not recognize the fourth one's place as a worthy member of this series.  So I'm calling it a trilogy, consisting of Raiders of the Lost Ark, Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom, and Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade, all three directed by Steven Spielberg.

This is a tricky one to marathon because of the timeline.  Temple of Doom, the second one released, actually takes place before Raiders of the Lost Ark.  So there are two ways to marathon this trilogy.  I would recommend going in the order of release.

The Indiana Jones Trilogy is a classic example of quality action filmmaking.  There's humor, the plot never stands still, it's got a little bit of romance, and more than enough fight and chase scenes.  Harrison Ford seems like he was born to play the role of Indy.  My only knock against it is that there are too many snakes.  I, like the title character, hate snakes.

The trilogy is good to marathon because all three films are equally engaging.  Even though they follow different storylines and have different auxiliary characters, Harrison Ford holds everything together with style.  I'm also a huge fan of Sean Connery as Ford's father in The Last Crusade.  Each film holds up as an individual and as part of a trilogy.  This makes for a very enjoyable marathon experience.  But Harrison Ford isn't finished, because he will also appear in...

Marathonable Trilogy Number 2 - Star Wars (Original Trilogy)

Star Wars, The Empire Strikes Back, and Return of the Jedi comprise one of the most iconic pieces of American cinema ever.  Star Wars was directed by George Lucas, (producer of Indiana Jones,) The Empire Strikes back by Irvin Kershner, and Return of the Jedi by Richard Marquand.  But the entire series was the brainchild of George Lucas.

The trilogy tells a classic tale of good versus evil, set a long time ago in a galaxy far, far away.  While it's not necessarily believable that it took place long ago given all of the futuristic technology, the far, far away part sure is.  One of the series' strong points is its incredible makeup, costume, and animations for its alien creatures.

The story is simple and easy to follow.  There are clear good guys and bad guys, and you immediately know which is which.  There's not too many characters to follow, and they more or less follow the same path, so you never really have to worry about juggling to many plotlines at once.

The acting is pretty good, with the cast being led by a young Harrison Ford, who, as previously stated, is the man.  The voice of James Earl Jones is not bad either.

If you have not seen Star Wars, I cannot recommend it highly enough.  Just for the sake of your own cultural knowledge, I think you owe it to yourself to see at least the first one, if not the whole trilogy.  There are so many classic lines, characters, and locations to see and hear.  (My favorite:  "It's a trap!" -Admiral Ackbar)  If you have seen it, it is still always worth watching again.  I have yet to met a person who did not enjoy the original trilogy, and marathoning it just adds to the experience.

I guess that's all for now.  Tune in on Friday when I reveal the All-Time Most Marathonable Trilogy!  Until next time, let the wookie win.
-Harry

Video Mailbag

I will now be posting a video mailbag on youtube.  In it, I will be responding to comments on my posts.  I'm doing this so the space on the blog will be entirely devoted to new content.  Check it out:



I hope you guys like it.  I'll be posting these every now and then when I feel that there are enough comments to talk about.  So keep the comments coming!
Thanks,
-Harry

Trilogy Week Part 1

Question:  What comes in threes and makes millions at the box office?

Kick-ass trilogies, that's what!  And kick-ass trilogies are this week's hot topic.  (At least, they are for me.)  I'm going to take a look at some of the all-time great trilogies and see how they stack up.  But I'll be using a kind of strange system to determine my rankings.  I'm not necessarily looking for quality, although that is certainly important.  I'm looking for the ability to be watched in a marathon (a.k.a. back-to-back-to-back).  Why am I doing this?  Because there are few things I love more than sitting down and watching three movies in a row, especially when they are part of the same trilogy.  If you've never done this, I highly recommend you try it at least once.  And this week, I will be counting down the top five most marathonable trilogies of all time.

Here's what I'm looking for:
Plot Movement - Everything should move along at a decent enough pace.  If I'm going to watch three movies in a row, that means I'm staring at the screen for a long time.  I don't want to be bored.
Continuity - No plot holes, please.  I like my trilogies organized and well thought out, not just one good movie with a couple sequels tacked on.
Quality - Yes, the movies should be good.  Duh.

So in the words of the late, great, Heath Ledger, "Here... we... go!"

Marathonable Trilogy Number 5 - The Lord of the Rings

This is the most decorated trilogy of all time, taking home a combined 17 Oscars, including one Best Picture.  All three movies (The Fellowship of the Ring, The Two Towers, and The Return of the King) were directed by Peter Jackson.  They were released in consecutive years after about 7 years of development and filming.  Based on the novels by J.R.R. Tolkein, the trilogy is an epic fantasy story rooted in a very deep world meticulously chronicled by the author.  The books are not required reading for the movies.  If you're not that into fantasy literature, I would suggest skipping the books altogether.

As far as plot goes, there's a whole lot of things going on.  There are tons of characters with different storylines taking them in vastly different directions.  To compensate for this, the movies are ridiculously long, allowing them to fit in everything they want.  However, sometimes the films fall victim to their own length.  Scenes are sometimes dragged out, and there is quite a bit of filler material, i.e. traveling montages, epic shots of the landscape, (all New Zealand,) and long, long, battle sequences.  The story does get from beginning to and hits every point along the way, but it sure does take its sweet time doing so.

This trilogy is the epitome of a continuous story.  All three films were filmed at the same time.  All the actors and crew where in for the entire production.  Nobody was switched out in the middle.  It was planned as three films, and released as three films.  In terms of continuity, there is no better trilogy out there.  Period.

In terms of quality, The Lord of the Rings certainly is great, and has the hardware to prove it.  Every aspect of the film is strong, with good writing, remarkable special effects, one of the best soundtracks I can think of, and a solid ensemble performance highlighted by Viggo Mortensen and Ian Mckellan.

One thing that makes this trilogy so good for marathons is its consistency.  Many trilogies have a dip with the second film, something that makes watching all three difficult.  But in my opinion, The Two Towers is actually the best film of the three.

With all of these things in its favor, why is this trilogy only number 5?  The real answer is length.  It's just to damn long to watch all three in a row and not get bored at some point.  If you are going to have a Lord of the Rings marathon, make sure you build in some meal breaks.  You'll need them.  Great movies, great trilogy, but hindered by its own epicness, the Lord of the Rings comes in at number 5 on My Top 5 Most Marathonable Trilogies.

Marathonable Trilogy Number 4 - The Ocean's Trilogy

Steven Soderbergh's heist series follows the exploits of a gang of elite criminals.  The first film in the trilogy is based off of an earlier film starring Frank Sinatra.  His replacement?  A damn good one in the form of George Clooney.

By far the least continuous of my top 5, the Ocean's trilogy (Ocean's 11, Ocean's 12, and Ocean's 13,) are three distinctly different films, each with a unique storyline.  While all the characters carry over from one film to the next, there is not much in the way of over-arching plotlines.

But when it comes to keeping things moving, Ocean's does not disappoint.  It zips through its brisk and light story with ease, and there is always something going on.  Not a moment is wasted in any of these films, and if you blink, you might miss something.

All three movies are good in their own right, but unfortunately, the weakest is the second.  (I lay the blame squarely at the feet of Catherine Zeta-Jones.  She kills the movie.)  This makes the marathon difficult because of the lull in the middle.  But if you make it through to the third, you're home free, because once you see Al Pacino hit the screen in Ocean's 13, the movie flies by like a rollercoaster, and a good one.

It has its flaws, mostly coming in the second film, but also as a result of the disjointed nature of its production, with each movie filmed seperately.  But in the end, the films are just too darn fun not to enjoy.  Sporting one of the best casts ever put together, (George Clooney, Brad Pitt, Matt Damon, Andy Garcia, and many more,) the Ocean's trilogy is a wild ride, and when watched together, provide a full day's worth of humor and excitement.

Ok, that's all for now.  On Wednesday at dawn, look to the East.  Unfortunately, the riders of Rohan won't be there, but I will, and I'll have the next pair of trilogies in the countdown.

-Harry

P.S.  I did not coin the phrase, "Fast Cars, Danger, Fire and Knives."  Ian Matthias Babbit, a.k.a. Aesop Rock did.  He's a musician.  He's also the man.

Sunday Update 6/6/10

Hey everybody.  Today marks the first Sunday of my blog.  My plan for Sundays is not to provide much in the way of content, but instead offer a preview of what to expect for the week ahead.  This will give you time to see movies if you choose to get prepared for reviews, musings, etc.  This is strictly optional, and sometimes I won't tell you exactly what movies are coming up.  The reason I'm doing this is because I have received a lot of input as to what I should write about.  I write down everything you tell me, and file it under ideas for upcoming posts.  The problem is that I can't get to it all at once.  So if I tell you what I'm doing, you won't ask me to do something that I'm already doing.  That being said, keep the suggestions coming!  I really like having your opinions and ideas.  I will try to get to everything that you ask me to write about, but it takes time.

In other news, you may have noticed that there are now ads on my blog.  It wouldn't hurt if you clicked on them every once in a while.  Also, if you are the type that downloads or rents movies from iTunes, there is now a link from my blog straight to the iTunes movie store.  If you could use that link when you buy or rent movies, that would also be much appreciated.  Again, don't feel any obligation to do so.  But it would be nice.  If you prefer using Amazon.com to buy or rent digital videos, let me know and I will provide the appropriate links.

So I have decided that this upcoming week will be Trilogy Week.  I will be reviewing five trilogies over the course of the week.  On Monday, I will be explaining my ranking system and reviewing the first two trilogies.  On Wednesday, I will be reviewing the second two trilogies.  And on Friday, I will review the final trilogy.

Counting by threes,
-Harry

Fast Cars, Danger, Fire and Knives

Hello readers.  I wanted to start off by thanking everyone for the positive comments.  I really appreciate your support.  Also, there seems to be a hankering for some talk about romantic comedies.  Don't worry, it's in the works.  If you want to see the rom-coms I'll be discussing, check out High Fidelity, Love Actually, and Ten Things I Hate About You.  These are all movies worth seeing at some point anyway, so if you can catch one soon, that would be fantastic.

Right, I promised in the last post that I would do a review of either Snatch, The Machinist, Star Wars Episode 1, or Death Race.  I may have been lying, but only a little.  I will be talking about Death Race, to be sure, but this is not a review.  This is my musings about Jason Statham and the movie industry.  To start, if you have no idea what Death Race is, here's the trailer:

How does that look to you?  Gratuitously violent and pointless?  Probably.  Now I'll show you the trailer for The Hurt Locker, this year's Best Picture according the the Academy Awards.  (Therefore not definitive.)


This might be one of the only times you will see those two trailers in sequence.  Why is that?  I set out to explore the answer to that question.  Here's what I found.

First off, the numbers.  Death Race grossed about $36 million in the US during its theatrical run.  The Hurt Locker grossed a little over $12.5 million.  Ok, that tells us that more people have seen Death Race.  But here's the weird thing:  Every person I have talked to about Death Race says it was not a good movie.  Some hated it.  I have yet to meet a person who did not love The Hurt Locker.  Now, the people that I talk to are a small sample size.  So let's look bigger picture.  Check rottentomatoes.com.  (Or let me do it for you.)  On top critics, Death Race received a score of 43%.  The Hurt Locker got a 97%.  That's a monster difference.  This also means that more than 1 in 2 reviews of Death Race were unfavorable.  For The Hurt Locker, about 3 in 100 reviews were unfavorable.

So how does that reconcile with the fact that almost three times as many people saw Death Race in theaters?  Well, either people don't read reviews, or they ignore them.  Or, when in doubt, people go for Fast Cars, Danger, Fire and Knives, because it's simple, it's visceral, and it's fun.  And that's where Jason Statham comes in.

If you don't know who Jason Statham is, here's a link.  You may notice that almost every movie he has appeared in is an action movie.  I'm going to let you in on a little secret.  He plays the same character in almost every movie.  Same accent, same haircut, every time.  He's always the action star who drives around kicking ass and taking names, with an emphasis on the kicking ass part.  Do I think he's not a good actor because of this?  No.  I think he's about average.  But he certainly has made a great career for being "about average".

Now, the point I'm getting at here is that with Jason Statham, you know what you're getting.  You're getting something reliable.  Something you've seen before and enjoyed.  Something proven.  And people will pay for that reliability.  As Rade Sherbedgia says in Snatch, "I always go for reliability.  [And] if it does not work you can always hit them with it."  He's talking about a gun.  I'm talking about movies.  Something reliable can be sold, because, like a gun, even if it doesn't work, it still functions as a blunt instrument.  You just have to hit someone with it.

And it's a cyclical process.  Movie-goers pay for the reliable movie, and studios pay for the reliable movie-goer.  That's the brilliance of Statham.  The Transporter has two sequels.  Crank has one.  He plays the same character every time.  That's reliability.  He's not acting, he working.  He is part of the assembly line process of making movies.  But I don't hold that against him.  He's just a regular guy, working for his paycheck.  That fact that his paycheck is a lot bigger than mine is irrelevant.

The Hurt Locker, on the other hand, was not reliable.  It turned out to be awesome, but that was uncertain going in.  You couldn't bank on it.  The fact that it won just about every award it could win was unforeseen.  And that's a risk for any studio with any indie project.  You never know how it will turn out.  But if you've got Statham, you've got a surefire winner.  It won't win many awards, but it'll pay the bills.

I've got a few final thoughts here, and then I'll wrap up.  I like Death Race.  I really do.  Just because it's not a "good" movie by my standards doesn't mean I can't watch and enjoy it.  See my post about the QWERTY scale for more on that.  Also, I like Jason Statham.  He appears in one of my All-Time Top 10 Movie Scenes.  (It's the opening scene from Lock, Stock, And Two Smoking Barrels.  It's also his first movie appearance.)

So before you see another movie, think about what you want.  Are you willing to take a risk on a movie you don't know?  Or do you want something reliable?  Remember, what is reliable for some is not enjoyable for others.  You have to define it for yourself.  But for me, reliable is Fast Cars, Danger, Fire and Knives.

-Harry

P.S.  Don't hold your breath for the romantic comedies post.  It's coming, I promise, but it might not be the very next post.  Be patient.

Request:  In the comments section, please talk about what actors, directors, genres, etc. are reliable for you.     I'd like to know what kind of movies you guys like, so I can talk about the most relevant films for you.

The QWER(TY) Response

Has anyone ever asked you the question, "On a scale of one to ten, how would you rate (fill in the blank)?" I'm guessing the answer is yes. This question annoys me. Why? Let me provide an example. I was talking about Avatar with a group of friends, and someone asked me that exact question. I said 5. We then argued for about ten minutes until we all agreed that my actual opinion was more in the range of 4. That sucks. I shouldn't have to debate for ten minutes over a point on a one to ten scale, only to be told that my first opinion was not actually my real opinion. The fact that I was wrong about my own opinion is irrelevant. The relevant issue is that the scale is flawed. If each point of difference requires an argument, then the scale sucks. So here's a better one. It's binary. Which is awesome.

The scale is based on four different rankings, each one having a binary response. The categories are Quality, Watchability, Enjoyability, and Recommendation. When someone asks you to rank a movie, you only need to provide a 1 or 0 for those four categories, with one being yes, and 0 being no. I'll use Avatar as an example. Say someone asks me to rate it for them. I would say 1,0,0,1/0 thank you. (That's the TY in QWERTY.) Here's why: Is it a high quality film? Objectively, yes. The directorial technique is very good, the visuals are awesome, and it represents a landmark in technological filmmaking. Is it watchable? Not to me. I would not watch it from the beginning, or the middle from that matter, without wanting to leave at some point. Is it enjoyable? No, not to me. I did not have a good time watching this movie. While I certainly appreciated what I was seeing, I did not have a good time. I just didn't like it. If you need to know why, see my previous post. Would I recommend it? Well, that one depends on who's asking, and what mood they're in. Make a judgement call. This one will usually be 1/0.

Why is this a better scale? Let's think about what the one to ten scale is really asking. It's asking you to put the movie in a percentile, based on every other movie you've seen. But the person asking has no idea what you're comparing it to. They don't know what other movies you've seen in your life, and so they have no frame of reference. They're just hearing a random number. And if you're one of the people that never rates something below five unless they really despise it, then you're ruining the scale before you even give out a number.

Here's another example. Say someone asks me to rate Requiem For A Dream. On a one to ten scale, I would say seven. That means roughly thirty percent of the movies I have seen are better than it, and seventy percent are worse. Say I used the QWERTY scale. 1,0,1,1 thank you. This tells the person the that it is a good movie, it's hard to watch, but I still enjoyed it, and that I recommend it.

By the way, you may be asking yourself, "Why do I include the TY at the end of QWERTY?" Because I love talking about movies. If someone asks for my opinion on a movie, I thank them. It's common courtesy.

Now bear in mind that the QWERTY system does not work in a vacuum. It certainly does not tell a person all you think of a movie, and neither does the one to ten scale. If someone asks about a movie, engage them in conversation. Tell them what you really think. Don't think that four ones or zeros will tell a person everything they want to know about a movie. They asked, let them know your full opinion.

That's all for now, I guess. Here's a few more random QWERTY reviews just to give you an idea of how it works.

Snatch: 1,1,1,1, thank you.

The Machinist: 1,0,1,1 , thank you.

Star Wars Episode 1: 0,1,0,0, thank you.

Death Race: 0,1,1,1/0, thank you.

One of those movies will be the next one reviewed.

-Harry

Avatar and Star Trek

Let me begin by saying something that my brother recently brought to my attention. No, I have not seen When Harry Met Sally. I just thought the name sounded cool. Whatever.

On to the main topic. I will be assuming that for some reason, you have seen neither Avatar nor Star Trek, and are debating which sci-fi epic you should rent. I am also assuming that you took the time to watch the trailers that I provided in my previous post, so you have a vague idea of what I am talking about. If you (like me) are one of the people who uses rottentomatoes.com to help figure out which movie to watch, I will help you out by providing links to the top critics here and here. You may be saying to yourself, "Wow, both of these movies are incredibly well reviewed. Which should I pick?" And that's where I come in.

Of course, one of the first things you have to think about when picking a movie is time. How much time do you have. Avatar is more than half an hour longer than Star Trek. If you have an extra half an hour to spare, skip this step. If you only have two hours to watch a movie, then your decision is made for you, unless you plan on watching in multiple installments. (Not always a bad idea.) Another important factor when picking movies is who you will be watching it with. Alone? With friends? Family? Strangers? These things matter. Trust me. I'll go into each scenario in more detail, but this is something to keep in the back of your mind. Also, for most movies I would tell you to figure out what time of day you will be watching, but for these particular movies I would say that it doesn't really matter. The last thing you should bear in mind relates to my opinion of these movies. I saw both of them in an Imax theater, (Avatar in 3D) which is the best possible condition to watch a movie. Of the two, Star Trek is the only one I have seen on the small screen.

One final note before I tell you which one you should watch and why. Avatar is one of the most hyped movies of all time. I don't usually get to hung up on hype, but it's worth mentioning in this case, given the box office numbers that Avatar put up. Don't let the hype or numbers make your opinion for you. If the movie is good, it's good. If it's not, it's not. If someone gives you a reason for why they like or dislike it, that's one thing. If your reason to see it is because everyone else in the free world has seen it, that's another. Ok, moving on.

So which should you see? Star Trek. Here's why.

Both plots are ok. Avatar's plot is Pocahontas with aliens. Pocahontas was a great movie. The songs kicked ass. The plot was touching. But that was all it was. Simple, understandable, and a little bit racist. But all of that is fine. Star Trek, on the other hand, is quite complicated. Not because there's any particular twists or multiple character lines to follow, but because of the nature of JJ Abrams. If you have ever watched Lost, then you know. If not, you'll see what I'm talking about soon enough. I prefer Star Trek here because it is more likely to stimulate intelligent conversation. After Avatar, no one was left saying, "But I don't get this." There were definitely people who did not fully understand the plot mechanics of Star Trek. This allows people to talk about it, and try to explain why certain things happened and others didn't. Avatar does not allow for this, because the plot is so linear.

The acting is where Star Trek begins to separate itself from Avatar. The acting in Avatar (with the exception of Sigourney Weaver, who is the shit,) is terrible. As I always tell my friends, Sam Worthington is the second worst actor in Hollywood. (Stay tuned for when I reveal who the actual worst actor is.) His accent changes midway through the film. It was kind of jarring. My dad noticed this as well. We both were confused, and I was disgruntled. There was no reason for it to happen, but it happened anyway. The only other above average performance was turned in by Zoe Saldana, but this was wasted because you never actually saw what she really looks like. But as far as vocal performances go, she was pretty good.

Conversely, the acting in Star Trek is rather good, which is an even more impressive feat given the fact that all the characters are already known by fans of the series. The fact that the actors had to work within the confines of roles that had already been filled by previous actors (and some pretty good ones, if you ask me,) is quite impressive. The film is carried by its two leads, Chris Pine as Kirk and Zachary Quinto as Spock. While neither performance is even worth mentioning in Oscar talk, for what they are, (sci-fi action heroes,) they kick ass. If you've seen Smokin' Aces (which I highly recommend) then you know how good Chris Pine is. (He was one of the Tremor Brothers. Yeah. I know.) But this is clearly a breakout role for him. He is funny, cocky, and cool under pressure in all the ways that Shatner was. Here's to hoping he doesn't end his career as the new Priceline Negotiator. Zachary Quinto turns in a performance that is so similar to Leonard Nimoy's Spock that it's kind of weird. However, even you have never seen a Star Trek episode or movie in your life, I think that you will be hard pressed not to enjoy the performances turned in by these two actors. The supporting cast is also quite good, most notably Zoe Saldana, (noticing a theme here?) Karl Urban, and Bruce Greenwood. Karl Urban especially. He's just the man. If you like him, check out The Bourne Supremacy and Doom. Yeah, I said Doom. It's a pretty dramatic role difference, and he pulls it off like a champ.

When it comes to special effects, both of these movies clearly put a lot of time, effort, and money into making sure they looked as stunning as possible. And they both succeeded. However, I found that despite all of the bells and whistles, neither of these movies were the most visually impressive of 2009. (District 9 was.) That being said, they both looked incredible. The 3d effects in Avatar were truly unbelievable. The level of immersion into the world was unlike any other movie. Ever. However, I felt that the world of Pandora looked slightly cartoonish, and it was difficult for me to buy into the setting. It was like I was watching Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within, except with more explosions and blue people. This was a major turn-off for me. If they spent so much time on the effects, couldn't they have made the aliens a little more, well alien? (Again, see District 9. The aliens in that movie will rock your socks.) While Star Trek boasted no 3d effects, I found it to be visually impressive enough that the difference between it and Avatar is pretty much negligible. The explosions rocked, the aliens were cool, the ships looked like the kind of thing that's probably going to be rolling off of assembly lines in Michigan circa 2100, and the whole thing felt very seamless. Unlike Avatar, there were rarely moments when I looked at the screen and said to myself, "Well that just looks silly." (Exception: The scene on Delta Vega.) So while the visuals in Avatar were more technologically advanced, I had an easier time believing what was going on in Star Trek based on the effects. What can I say, they just seemed more real.

Star Trek is also much easier to watch with a group of people because of its comedic elements. Avatar is a very serious movie, and when watching it, it is best for everybody to remain silent for all 160 minutes of it. Star Trek is sure to evoke a few laughs along the way, so it won't dampen the mood in the way that Avatar will.

So if you are deciding between these two films, I have to recommend Star Trek. It's simply a better movie. You get a ton more bang for your buck in terms of time. If you are in the mood for a sci-fi action epic, (as I usually am,) Star Trek is definitely the way to go.

All this being said, you should definitely watch Avatar at some point. It is worth seeing once. It will be remembered as an important milestone in filmmaking due to the technical achievements in 3d technology. But don't believe the hype or the Oscar nominations. I would rather see Star Trek than Avatar any and every day of the week.

Boldly going where others have probably gone before,

Harry

Some Stuff You Should Probably Know About Me

Hello all, and welcome to my blog. Thanks for stopping by. My name is Harry, and I like movies. I like them a lot. In this blog I will be talking about movies quite a bit, giving reviews, musings, and other random comments I feel are worth sharing. Whenever I talk about a movie, I will try to let you know whether or not I am assuming you have seen it. If I screw up on that, my bad. Also, I sometimes say "movie," sometimes "film". To me, it doesn't make a difference.

Ok, on to the real stuff. First thing you should know about me: I watch a lot of movies. There's actually three parts to that statement. Let me explain. Part 1: I watch a lot of bad movies. That's right. I watch bad movies. Some ones I know will be bad, some ones that surprise me by being bad, and some that I'm hoping won't be but turn out to be bad anyways. Part 2: I also watch a lot of good movies. Sometimes I do this by accident. Sometimes I don't. Part 3: I watch anything in between. The point that I'm trying to make here is that I will watch pretty much anything. I try my hardest not to be an elitist, looking down my nose at movies that I assume won't be good based on title, actors, director, or whatever. If somebody put the time in to make it, I'll watch it.

Second thing you should know about me: I watch movies multiple times, and not just the good ones. Sometimes I'll watch a crappy movie because I know that I'll be able to laugh at it. Sometimes I'm just in the mood for bad dialog and worse special effects. Which brings me to the third thing you should know about me: What I watch and don't watch is highly dependent on my mood. I am almost always in the mood for a movie of some kind, but the genre that I want at any given moment is highly variable.

Fourth thing: I don't walk out of movies in theaters. I do at home. I don't know why this is, but I have sat through some really bad movies in theaters, ones that I just couldn't stand. But at home, if I don't like it, I'm out of there. I don't always feel the need to finish a movie that I have started, even if it means missing the twist ending that everyone tells me will rock my world. If the movie is not enjoyable for me at the time, I just won't watch it. Doesn't mean I won't watch it later. Remember, I only watch things that are enjoyable at the time. This rule does not apply in theaters. I try to be as courteous as possible to other moviegoers, so when I'm in the theater, I sit still and shut my mouth. Most of the time.

Ok, you've probably had enough of me rambling at this point, plus I'm tired. For my next post, I'm planning on talking about Avatar and Star Trek. (That's the JJ Abrams one I'm talking about.) I'll give you the trailers, just in case you've been living under a rock and don't know what either of these films are.

That's all for now.

-Harry