![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Home sick, and bored.
Movie reviews of all of the films I've seen in theaters so far this year (unless I'm missing one. I'm not sure. In fact, I'm not entirely sure whether I saw one of these in January or last December. Either way.) In alphabetical order, with spoilers behind cuts.
Avatar
My boyfriend's dad took us to see this in 3D, and I'm glad that he footed the bill for it, frankly. (Although technically he's footed the bill for a lot of the films I've seen lately, considering that a lot of the ones we've seen since the beginning of the year were paid for by a gift card he gave my boyfriend for... was it his birthday? I think it was his birthday.) I try to do spoiler-free impressions for the others. Not bothering with this one, because if you're on the internet at all, odds are good that you know what the plot is.
When asked what I think about it by raving fans, I usually just smile and nod and say, "It was very impressive, visually - I can't believe the amount of work they must've put into designing and rendering it, and the 3D effects were actually immersive instead of just being a bunch of stuff flying at your face." I don't really have the guts to finish that statement with the finisher I want to add, which is something like, "...but the plot was hackneyed and predictable and has been done many times before, and the whole 'civilized guy jumps in and saves a bunch of savages from certain destruction by being more awesome at their lifestyle than they are' plot bugs me anyway, and it really felt like the filmmakers spent massive amounts of time making this fantastic canvas and then just drew stick figures on it."
I can't even really say that much about it. It was pretty. I wouldn't mind reading the worldbuilding notes that I've heard do exist; maybe I'd learn something about worldbuilding. The film itself, though... meh.
Daybreakers
Daybreakers plays with some interesting ideas, especially at first, but the filmmakers couldn't seem to decide what kind of film they wanted. You've got thoughtful bits about the situation that they're in, complete with social commentary, and then you have a cliche-packed thriller with gore and action and thrills. It would've been more satisfying to thriller fans if they'd just cut out the commentary, and if they'd wanted to make a commentary they picked the wrong vehicle to do it with, IMO. It's not a horrible film, but it's not a great one, either. (Also, while they are staying truer to the mainstream vampire legends than other "vampire" stories, some of the changes that they've made just made me boggle.)
I liked the original concept, simply because I think that the writers probably got it right. What would the human race do if there really was a virus that made people eternally unaging, healthy and immortal, with the price being that they had to avoid direct sunlight and drink uninfected blood for sustenance? The vast majority of them would want it, and would want their friends and family members to have it so that they wouldn't end up growing old and dying while they lived on, even if it was against their wishes. And then they'd probably starve to death, because there wouldn't be enough humans left to support the massive vampire population.
So. Plot. Centers at first around the critical worldwide blood shortage and the struggle to create a stable blood substitute so that vampires won't tear themselves to pieces from hunger (apparently not having blood damages their brains and causes them to deteriorate into bloodthirsty monsters.) Main character is one of those vampires who really hates being a vampire and who wants to make a blood substitute so that vampires won't need to drink human blood at all anymore. His boss is a guy who loves being a vampire, talks endlessly about how awesome being a vampire is, and has a vampire-hating daughter that he wants to find and turn so that he'll have her with him forever. His brother is a military man who likes being a vampire because, as he says at one point, he was "no good at being human," and who the MC is furious with because he was the one who turned the MC against his will, because his brother didn't want to lose him. I'm sure you've already noticed the abundance of cliches. Better get used to it.
And then the main character feels sorry for some humans and saves them, and they invite him to meet a friend, who used to be a vampire but was somehow cured by being out in the sun too long. Yes, you read that right. The cure for being a vampire in this movie is controlled exposure to the sun. (Or, well, that's one of them, anyway.) So the MC does some tests, finds out that it really works by subjecting himself to it at a moment when vampire soldiers are coming for him, manages to evade capture when almost every human he's met is summarily slaughtered (NOT captured and farmed for blood, for some reason - guess the soldiers got hungry) and heads back to his old pharmaceutical company employer to spread the word. Only, his coworkers have developed the blood substitute and don't want him to spread the cure because it'll hurt their bottom line and/or upstage their development.
This is when we discover the other cure - drinking the blood of a human who has somehow been cured of being a vampire. Which results in some horrifically gory scenes in which a cured vampire (MC's soldier brother) sacrifices himself so that the other can get away, and then the starving soldiers turn on him and drain him dry and rip him to shreds... only to turn human themselves... only to be ripped to shreds themselves by other starving soldiers... who then turn human themselves... and it just goes on and on until the last few human survivors are gunned down by a scientist who doesn't want his blood substitute upstaged by this new cure. It's horribly gratuitous. (It's not the worst scene in the film, though. That's early in the film, when a vampire volunteer is being fed the prototype blood substitute, and it literally makes his head explode. It's less gory, obviously, but far more gratuitous.)
And yes, apparently all that's required to avoid dying during the day in this version of vampirism is avoiding direct sunlight. There's a scene where the main character is meeting with some humans who need his help - he's meeting them at noon under a really big tree. How does he avoid burning up? By putting on a hat and sunglasses and gloves, walking in the shade of the tree and avoiding the shafts of direct sunlight that threaten to burn him. That scene just struck me as ridiculous (but not as ridiculous as the fact that vampires explode when you stake them and burn as violently in direct sunlight as sodium burns in water.) But I did like the fact that they apparently weren't completely helpless during the day, and some of them (the rich ones) actually had cars that were modified to work in daylight - which seemed to be a combination of complete lightproofing and cameras that allowed a real-time 360-degree field of viewing around the car. The military (which was almost entirely centered around hunting humans - apparently vampires have achieved world peace) had full-body armor with cameras so that they can walk around during the day and hunt the humans.
Side note: there are a lot of cliches in this film. I don't think that any of them get enough character development to stop being cliches. The characters who work in this film are the ones who are played in such a fun, over-the-top way that the cliches become entertaining (i.e. Defoe's portrayal of the cured vampire.)
The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus
It's a colorful, witty piece with lots of dry humor and plot twists. On the other hand, the plot is hard to follow, and I can definitely see why it was limited release in the US; it isn't likely to have widespread appeal to American audiences. Still, if you enjoy British dark comedy, it's definitely worth a look.
Just to give you an idea of what you're walking into...
Doctor Parnassus is a man who loves to tell stories and who preaches the power of stories and the imagination. He also has a bad habit of making bets with the Devil - bets that he can't seem to win, even when he does. For all of his power to render stories, the only way he seems to know how to tell them is to wander around modern London in a wagon that looks like it came out of an old-fashioned carnival and to hawk his Imaginarium as if it were an old freak show attraction. Needless to say, he's largely ignored. The Imaginarium itself changes from person to person, but it always offers a choice - a "good" choice that will enlighten the individual and lead them to happiness, or a "bad" choice that leads to damnation. The worlds that it renders are extremely cool and attractive, but with a definite dark undertone.
On top of all of that, Parnassus has a daughter that he loves dearly, but his deal states that when she turns sixteen, she belongs to the Devil. Her sixteenth birthday is coming up fast, and the doctor is desperate... desperate enough that when his wagon finds a mysterious hanged man and saves his life, and the hanged man offers his aid, he takes it. But the mysterious Tony ends up bringing a lot of trouble on them himself... he claims he has no memory of who he is, but he seems to be hiding something.
Anyway, I've already summed up the pros and cons of the film, so I don't need to say too much here. Just two random bits - first, that IMO it's nice to see Vern Troyer in a role that isn't just played for laughs (his character is one of the more competent and sensible ones in the film,) and second, that it doesn't guarantee a happy ending. (Literally.)
Legion
I'm having trouble being subjective about it. It hit one of my big philosophical squicks, if you can call it that, and I nearly walked out of the theater rather than keep watching it.
That said... it's another film that didn't seem to know what it wanted to be (action or introspection? Seriously, filmmakers, please choose one to focus on.) It didn't seem to know who it wanted to star, either. The action was okay, and Bettany does a good job playing characters like the one he was playing, but I still can't recommend it.
Sherlock Holmes
You really have to put your prejudices about Holmes aside when you watch this film; it's nothing like the popular portrayal of the character from other sources. But then, apparently a lot of popular portrayals were portrayed in such a way that Doyle himself never intended, and they did get a lot of the things from the books themselves right.
It's a fun movie, at any rate - I was a bit boggled by the direction that they approached the plot from at first, and by the direction that they took Adler and her relationship with Holmes, but it improved as I kept watching it. (Also, it's nice to see a movie that remembers that neither Holmes nor Watson were adverse to fighting when the situation called for it, and were in fact probably good at it, considering Watson's service and Holmes' obsessive training for all things that would make him a better solver of crime.) I enjoyed it, and I would totally see the sequel, if they end up making one.
Movie reviews of all of the films I've seen in theaters so far this year (unless I'm missing one. I'm not sure. In fact, I'm not entirely sure whether I saw one of these in January or last December. Either way.) In alphabetical order, with spoilers behind cuts.
Avatar
My boyfriend's dad took us to see this in 3D, and I'm glad that he footed the bill for it, frankly. (Although technically he's footed the bill for a lot of the films I've seen lately, considering that a lot of the ones we've seen since the beginning of the year were paid for by a gift card he gave my boyfriend for... was it his birthday? I think it was his birthday.) I try to do spoiler-free impressions for the others. Not bothering with this one, because if you're on the internet at all, odds are good that you know what the plot is.
When asked what I think about it by raving fans, I usually just smile and nod and say, "It was very impressive, visually - I can't believe the amount of work they must've put into designing and rendering it, and the 3D effects were actually immersive instead of just being a bunch of stuff flying at your face." I don't really have the guts to finish that statement with the finisher I want to add, which is something like, "...but the plot was hackneyed and predictable and has been done many times before, and the whole 'civilized guy jumps in and saves a bunch of savages from certain destruction by being more awesome at their lifestyle than they are' plot bugs me anyway, and it really felt like the filmmakers spent massive amounts of time making this fantastic canvas and then just drew stick figures on it."
I can't even really say that much about it. It was pretty. I wouldn't mind reading the worldbuilding notes that I've heard do exist; maybe I'd learn something about worldbuilding. The film itself, though... meh.
Daybreakers
Daybreakers plays with some interesting ideas, especially at first, but the filmmakers couldn't seem to decide what kind of film they wanted. You've got thoughtful bits about the situation that they're in, complete with social commentary, and then you have a cliche-packed thriller with gore and action and thrills. It would've been more satisfying to thriller fans if they'd just cut out the commentary, and if they'd wanted to make a commentary they picked the wrong vehicle to do it with, IMO. It's not a horrible film, but it's not a great one, either. (Also, while they are staying truer to the mainstream vampire legends than other "vampire" stories, some of the changes that they've made just made me boggle.)
I liked the original concept, simply because I think that the writers probably got it right. What would the human race do if there really was a virus that made people eternally unaging, healthy and immortal, with the price being that they had to avoid direct sunlight and drink uninfected blood for sustenance? The vast majority of them would want it, and would want their friends and family members to have it so that they wouldn't end up growing old and dying while they lived on, even if it was against their wishes. And then they'd probably starve to death, because there wouldn't be enough humans left to support the massive vampire population.
So. Plot. Centers at first around the critical worldwide blood shortage and the struggle to create a stable blood substitute so that vampires won't tear themselves to pieces from hunger (apparently not having blood damages their brains and causes them to deteriorate into bloodthirsty monsters.) Main character is one of those vampires who really hates being a vampire and who wants to make a blood substitute so that vampires won't need to drink human blood at all anymore. His boss is a guy who loves being a vampire, talks endlessly about how awesome being a vampire is, and has a vampire-hating daughter that he wants to find and turn so that he'll have her with him forever. His brother is a military man who likes being a vampire because, as he says at one point, he was "no good at being human," and who the MC is furious with because he was the one who turned the MC against his will, because his brother didn't want to lose him. I'm sure you've already noticed the abundance of cliches. Better get used to it.
And then the main character feels sorry for some humans and saves them, and they invite him to meet a friend, who used to be a vampire but was somehow cured by being out in the sun too long. Yes, you read that right. The cure for being a vampire in this movie is controlled exposure to the sun. (Or, well, that's one of them, anyway.) So the MC does some tests, finds out that it really works by subjecting himself to it at a moment when vampire soldiers are coming for him, manages to evade capture when almost every human he's met is summarily slaughtered (NOT captured and farmed for blood, for some reason - guess the soldiers got hungry) and heads back to his old pharmaceutical company employer to spread the word. Only, his coworkers have developed the blood substitute and don't want him to spread the cure because it'll hurt their bottom line and/or upstage their development.
This is when we discover the other cure - drinking the blood of a human who has somehow been cured of being a vampire. Which results in some horrifically gory scenes in which a cured vampire (MC's soldier brother) sacrifices himself so that the other can get away, and then the starving soldiers turn on him and drain him dry and rip him to shreds... only to turn human themselves... only to be ripped to shreds themselves by other starving soldiers... who then turn human themselves... and it just goes on and on until the last few human survivors are gunned down by a scientist who doesn't want his blood substitute upstaged by this new cure. It's horribly gratuitous. (It's not the worst scene in the film, though. That's early in the film, when a vampire volunteer is being fed the prototype blood substitute, and it literally makes his head explode. It's less gory, obviously, but far more gratuitous.)
And yes, apparently all that's required to avoid dying during the day in this version of vampirism is avoiding direct sunlight. There's a scene where the main character is meeting with some humans who need his help - he's meeting them at noon under a really big tree. How does he avoid burning up? By putting on a hat and sunglasses and gloves, walking in the shade of the tree and avoiding the shafts of direct sunlight that threaten to burn him. That scene just struck me as ridiculous (but not as ridiculous as the fact that vampires explode when you stake them and burn as violently in direct sunlight as sodium burns in water.) But I did like the fact that they apparently weren't completely helpless during the day, and some of them (the rich ones) actually had cars that were modified to work in daylight - which seemed to be a combination of complete lightproofing and cameras that allowed a real-time 360-degree field of viewing around the car. The military (which was almost entirely centered around hunting humans - apparently vampires have achieved world peace) had full-body armor with cameras so that they can walk around during the day and hunt the humans.
Side note: there are a lot of cliches in this film. I don't think that any of them get enough character development to stop being cliches. The characters who work in this film are the ones who are played in such a fun, over-the-top way that the cliches become entertaining (i.e. Defoe's portrayal of the cured vampire.)
The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus
It's a colorful, witty piece with lots of dry humor and plot twists. On the other hand, the plot is hard to follow, and I can definitely see why it was limited release in the US; it isn't likely to have widespread appeal to American audiences. Still, if you enjoy British dark comedy, it's definitely worth a look.
Just to give you an idea of what you're walking into...
Doctor Parnassus is a man who loves to tell stories and who preaches the power of stories and the imagination. He also has a bad habit of making bets with the Devil - bets that he can't seem to win, even when he does. For all of his power to render stories, the only way he seems to know how to tell them is to wander around modern London in a wagon that looks like it came out of an old-fashioned carnival and to hawk his Imaginarium as if it were an old freak show attraction. Needless to say, he's largely ignored. The Imaginarium itself changes from person to person, but it always offers a choice - a "good" choice that will enlighten the individual and lead them to happiness, or a "bad" choice that leads to damnation. The worlds that it renders are extremely cool and attractive, but with a definite dark undertone.
On top of all of that, Parnassus has a daughter that he loves dearly, but his deal states that when she turns sixteen, she belongs to the Devil. Her sixteenth birthday is coming up fast, and the doctor is desperate... desperate enough that when his wagon finds a mysterious hanged man and saves his life, and the hanged man offers his aid, he takes it. But the mysterious Tony ends up bringing a lot of trouble on them himself... he claims he has no memory of who he is, but he seems to be hiding something.
Anyway, I've already summed up the pros and cons of the film, so I don't need to say too much here. Just two random bits - first, that IMO it's nice to see Vern Troyer in a role that isn't just played for laughs (his character is one of the more competent and sensible ones in the film,) and second, that it doesn't guarantee a happy ending. (Literally.)
Legion
I'm having trouble being subjective about it. It hit one of my big philosophical squicks, if you can call it that, and I nearly walked out of the theater rather than keep watching it.
That said... it's another film that didn't seem to know what it wanted to be (action or introspection? Seriously, filmmakers, please choose one to focus on.) It didn't seem to know who it wanted to star, either. The action was okay, and Bettany does a good job playing characters like the one he was playing, but I still can't recommend it.
Sherlock Holmes
You really have to put your prejudices about Holmes aside when you watch this film; it's nothing like the popular portrayal of the character from other sources. But then, apparently a lot of popular portrayals were portrayed in such a way that Doyle himself never intended, and they did get a lot of the things from the books themselves right.
It's a fun movie, at any rate - I was a bit boggled by the direction that they approached the plot from at first, and by the direction that they took Adler and her relationship with Holmes, but it improved as I kept watching it. (Also, it's nice to see a movie that remembers that neither Holmes nor Watson were adverse to fighting when the situation called for it, and were in fact probably good at it, considering Watson's service and Holmes' obsessive training for all things that would make him a better solver of crime.) I enjoyed it, and I would totally see the sequel, if they end up making one.
