Weekend movies
Aug. 30th, 2010 07:33 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
feliciakwTwo movies, made thirty years apart, seeing both for the first time.
A while back I wrote a post about Jane Seymour, and several on my f-list told me I should see Somewhere In Time. The reason I've never seen it before is because I always heard how sad it is. But I do know it has a good reputation, and has a rather avid fan following. So I decided to Netflix it.
First, it wasn't nearly as sad as I'd been led to believe. Either that, or the buildup was such that I was expecting it, and so was separated from it. Or I wasn't invested in it. Whatever. I didn't cry.
The movie itself is really enjoyable. (Though Geo and I did chuckle at it being essentially "trans-dimensional stalking." Oh, how jaded and cynical the world has become in 30 years.) It was a simple, and admittedly predictable storyline, but it was well-told, with amazing costuming and setting (I think my cousin spent a couple summers working in the hotel), and some wonderful actors.
I was also extremely tickled that in spite of a minuscule budget (quoted at $4 million) and zero CGI, it works. Things did get done before the current age of computers, and they looked real. (Because they were real.) All the effects--what there were--were either in-camera or post-production. The movie does not suffer for it, and in fact, I think that's part of its charm. It does not have effects that will become obsolete and corny in years to come.
It's not "my kind" of romance story, but I can totally understand how it became a cult classic.
And everyone looked so young. Heh.
Now, I'm not one to advocate remakes of movies, especially if there's no good reason to remake them. If a new director wants to give a story a different perspective, or if a classic story can be updated or "re-imagined," I can understand that. But straight remakes have never made much sense to me. (Okay, maybe from a "learning from the greats by recreating what they did" perspective, but not from a commercial release perspective.) And Jane Seymour, Christopher Reeve, and Christopher Plummer were all wonderfully cast for the picture. (I really do think Jane Seymour is one of the most beautiful actresses I've ever seen.) But that said?
I'd love to see Jensen in a remake of this movie. Not that it should be remade, mind you. But if it were, Jensen would be awesome in it. (Can't think of who I'd want to play Elise, though.)
Also, Avatar was re-released to theaters in 3D this weekend. We missed it the first time around (it didn't interest us enough to make it a priority), and what we've seen of it playing in the stores looks terrible (quality-wise). But it was showing at the new Muvico in Fredricksburg, so we went to dinner at Splitsville (the attached bowling alley) and saw the movie in their posh reserved seating, high class theater. (Very nice experience.)
I was . . . actually less impressed with Avatar as a movie than I was SIT. I can't really put my finger on why. It was an enjoyable enough movie, and I'm glad I saw it. And I like the characters Sigourney Weaver usually plays. It was a very pretty movie, but the 3D didn't really seem to add anything to the movie for me. (I will long remember a reaction of awe I got during an establishing shot of the mine in MBV3D. It was so cool. Because it gave the scene depth.) And it felt like they were cutting back and forth between a live action film and a computer animated film. Which, they were. It didn't really distract me from the movie, but if they were going for the "IT LOOKS SO REAL" feel, it wasn't consistent for me.
And it was a fairly typical Cameron film as far as the theme. I saw a lot of similarities to The Abyss (which I really like and find to be a superior movie to this one).
That being said, I did become invested in the characters. And I almost teared up the first time Jake finds himself in his avatar body, and everyone is telling him to stay still and not move. Newsflash, folks: You give a crippled man a body with functioning legs? He's gonna want to run. Run, jump, skip, and dance. Don't act so surprised.
Also, when Sigourney Weaver was explaining that the planet was one big neural network, I kinda wanted to smack the corporate dude (and the military dude) in the head.
(It also reminded me of the passage of Scripture that says that if people remain quiet, the very rocks will cry out with praise [Luke 19:40]. Also, Isaiah 55:12, the part that reads, " . . . the mountains and the hills with burst into song . . . and the trees of the field will clap their hands." Sing along if you've a mind to. "You shall go out with joy, and be led forth in peace. The mountains and the hills will break forth before you . . . ")
I really liked the bioluminescence stuff; that was really pretty. But the scene where they're catching their flying dragons, as cool as it was, made me want to watch How to Train Your Dragon again. (We'll be getting that one on Blu-Ray. Avatar not so much.)
I guess I don't really have a whole lot else to say about it. It was an enjoyable movie. I didn't get bored, even though it did feel long. And it was very pretty. But I'm not sure what the big deal about it is. Very much style over substance, imo. Oh, the substance had its merits, and I rather liked that faith and science ended up working hand in hand. And I was so very touched when Neytiri finally saw the real, human Jake. But overall, it didn't WOW me. *shrug*
A while back I wrote a post about Jane Seymour, and several on my f-list told me I should see Somewhere In Time. The reason I've never seen it before is because I always heard how sad it is. But I do know it has a good reputation, and has a rather avid fan following. So I decided to Netflix it.
First, it wasn't nearly as sad as I'd been led to believe. Either that, or the buildup was such that I was expecting it, and so was separated from it. Or I wasn't invested in it. Whatever. I didn't cry.
The movie itself is really enjoyable. (Though Geo and I did chuckle at it being essentially "trans-dimensional stalking." Oh, how jaded and cynical the world has become in 30 years.) It was a simple, and admittedly predictable storyline, but it was well-told, with amazing costuming and setting (I think my cousin spent a couple summers working in the hotel), and some wonderful actors.
I was also extremely tickled that in spite of a minuscule budget (quoted at $4 million) and zero CGI, it works. Things did get done before the current age of computers, and they looked real. (Because they were real.) All the effects--what there were--were either in-camera or post-production. The movie does not suffer for it, and in fact, I think that's part of its charm. It does not have effects that will become obsolete and corny in years to come.
It's not "my kind" of romance story, but I can totally understand how it became a cult classic.
And everyone looked so young. Heh.
Now, I'm not one to advocate remakes of movies, especially if there's no good reason to remake them. If a new director wants to give a story a different perspective, or if a classic story can be updated or "re-imagined," I can understand that. But straight remakes have never made much sense to me. (Okay, maybe from a "learning from the greats by recreating what they did" perspective, but not from a commercial release perspective.) And Jane Seymour, Christopher Reeve, and Christopher Plummer were all wonderfully cast for the picture. (I really do think Jane Seymour is one of the most beautiful actresses I've ever seen.) But that said?
I'd love to see Jensen in a remake of this movie. Not that it should be remade, mind you. But if it were, Jensen would be awesome in it. (Can't think of who I'd want to play Elise, though.)
Also, Avatar was re-released to theaters in 3D this weekend. We missed it the first time around (it didn't interest us enough to make it a priority), and what we've seen of it playing in the stores looks terrible (quality-wise). But it was showing at the new Muvico in Fredricksburg, so we went to dinner at Splitsville (the attached bowling alley) and saw the movie in their posh reserved seating, high class theater. (Very nice experience.)
I was . . . actually less impressed with Avatar as a movie than I was SIT. I can't really put my finger on why. It was an enjoyable enough movie, and I'm glad I saw it. And I like the characters Sigourney Weaver usually plays. It was a very pretty movie, but the 3D didn't really seem to add anything to the movie for me. (I will long remember a reaction of awe I got during an establishing shot of the mine in MBV3D. It was so cool. Because it gave the scene depth.) And it felt like they were cutting back and forth between a live action film and a computer animated film. Which, they were. It didn't really distract me from the movie, but if they were going for the "IT LOOKS SO REAL" feel, it wasn't consistent for me.
And it was a fairly typical Cameron film as far as the theme. I saw a lot of similarities to The Abyss (which I really like and find to be a superior movie to this one).
That being said, I did become invested in the characters. And I almost teared up the first time Jake finds himself in his avatar body, and everyone is telling him to stay still and not move. Newsflash, folks: You give a crippled man a body with functioning legs? He's gonna want to run. Run, jump, skip, and dance. Don't act so surprised.
Also, when Sigourney Weaver was explaining that the planet was one big neural network, I kinda wanted to smack the corporate dude (and the military dude) in the head.
(It also reminded me of the passage of Scripture that says that if people remain quiet, the very rocks will cry out with praise [Luke 19:40]. Also, Isaiah 55:12, the part that reads, " . . . the mountains and the hills with burst into song . . . and the trees of the field will clap their hands." Sing along if you've a mind to. "You shall go out with joy, and be led forth in peace. The mountains and the hills will break forth before you . . . ")
I really liked the bioluminescence stuff; that was really pretty. But the scene where they're catching their flying dragons, as cool as it was, made me want to watch How to Train Your Dragon again. (We'll be getting that one on Blu-Ray. Avatar not so much.)
I guess I don't really have a whole lot else to say about it. It was an enjoyable movie. I didn't get bored, even though it did feel long. And it was very pretty. But I'm not sure what the big deal about it is. Very much style over substance, imo. Oh, the substance had its merits, and I rather liked that faith and science ended up working hand in hand. And I was so very touched when Neytiri finally saw the real, human Jake. But overall, it didn't WOW me. *shrug*
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2010-09-01 09:36 pm (UTC)Avatar was...fun. I really enjoyed it. But I had no desire to re-watch it and I could tell exactly how it was going to end fifteen minutes in. Disney's Pocahontas starring a bunch of popular supporting characters from Cameron's other films.
(Also, the Abyss is an awesome movie, esp the director's cut. *hugs it*)
no subject
Date: 2010-09-01 11:06 pm (UTC)Amazingly, I've never seen Disney's Pocahontas. You see, the Pocahontas legend was one of my very favorite stories when I was growing up. (We even had a German shepherd named Pocahontas.) When the movie came out, I was afraid that Disney was going to screw up the story, make her marry John Smith at the end or something. But I've recently thought maybe I should see it.
no subject
Date: 2010-09-01 11:10 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-09-02 01:44 am (UTC)