[04/20/2013]
I have just watched my first
movie in the theater for 2013 – Oblivion. The movie is written and
directed by Joseph Kosinski (Tron: Legacy). It stars Tom Cruise, Morgan
Freeman, and Olga Kuryenko (Quantum of Solace).
The story takes place in the
late 21st century, after Earth is devastated by a war with an
invasion of advanced aliens. Humanity has survived the
war, but civilization on Earth is completely gone as well as a devastated
moon. Tom Cruise plays the main
character Jack, whose mission is to maintain the extraction of Earth’s
remaining resources from the defeated alien scavengers
still on the planet. The remaining resources are then to be
transferred to the Saturn moon, Titan, which the surviving humans
are now living permanently.
Many reviewers on YouTube and
other websites are not giving this movie much praises, giving it an average
score or lower. This time, I do not agree
with the reviewers on this.
If you have not seen the
trailer, do not. If you have, then don’t have your expectations too high,
because the trailer gives up too much of the plot of the
film. I can write a whole article or blog on why most trailers reveals
too much of the movie, with no sense of mystery. The better
trailers gives you a mystery: Psycho, any Kubrick film, The Dark
Knight. But I digress…
I think that is why many
reviewers give it a bad nod. Oblivion is a simple story. It is not
overly complex and philosophical – as you would apply that to the Matrix
films, Prometheus, or 2001: A Space Odyssey. Oblivion fits
into the realm of good old-fashioned Sci-Fi, starting with the pulp magazine
stories from Issac Asimov and Ray Bradbury, Rod Serling’s Twilight Zone, and to
the late 60’s / 70’s / and early 80’s
films like “Planet of the
Apes”, “The Omega Man”, “A Boy and His Dog”, “Silent Running”, “Logan’s Run”,
“Outland”, “Scanners”, “Brainstorm” and
others.
These films does not contain
a lot of action, it’s more cerebal, and the philosophical tone or moral is
pretty straightforward.
They are not epic, but makes
you scratch your head after the film and go – hmmm, that’s interesting.
It’s not a blockbuster as you would expect from an “Iron Man 3”
or “The Avengers”. It’s definitely not a mindless action film like
“Transformers”, “Battleship”, or the recent “G.I. Joe:
Retaliation”, where our younger post-MTV, Fast and Furious, ADD-stricken
generation would call it COOL! or BADASS! It is actually refreshing to
watch a film like this, waiting for some time for Sci-Fi like this.
Now, just because it’s like
an old-fashion Sci-Fi does not mean it looks visually or sounds
old-fashion.
The special effects and
soundtrack are outstanding – going to the realism and style of Ridley Scott’s
Prometheus. And it not caught up with
trying to be in 3-D, like many films are trying to be. In fact, the film
was not released in 3-D. It is a beautiful movie,
especially how they did with the moon. The soundtrack is very similar
that to Daft Punk’s soundtrack for Tron: Legacy.
I am usually not a big Tom
Cruise fan. Most of his acting tends to be “over the top” to the
point of Shanter, and especially with his tabloid lifestyle.
However, his performance is
very good here in Oblivion, whereby I forgot that Tom Cruise was in the
movie. This reminds me of his performance in Kubrick’s last film “Eyes
Wide Shut”, where you forget that Cruise is a crazy, Scientologist,
nut-cracker. I’m given me a nod of this one. The other actors are pretty
good. Morgan Freeman was in there, but did not get much screen
time.
In terms of themes, there are
some relevant portions of this movie: the use of machine
drones. Since our government is using
drones both inside and outside our country, you can appreciate what it feels
like to be followed or spied by a drone.
You can also see references
to 2001: A Space Odyssey, Moon, and Logan’s Run.
Therefore, I rate this film a
very, very good film to watch. If you are expecting a big blockbuster
film, you will be disappointed.
I would watch it more and
more in the theater, if it did not cost an arm and a leg to watch it
repeatedly.
If you like simple Sci-Fi
without the baggage, then this is a film for you.
Next estimated DJJD movie
review: Iron Man 3
P.S.
Film Documentaries Worth
Watching
I have been watching on
Netflix a documentary series called The Story of
Film: An Odyssey.
This is a documentary by film
historian Mark Cousins showing the style and the art-form of film making in the
beginning of celluloid of the early 20th century that to the digital
age of 21st century. It does not center with Hollywood
but with all film throughout the world, basically showing how Russian, German,
French, Japan, etc., has made an impact towards cinema as an art-form.
You will learn a lot about directors and their style. This is not about
actors or stories. You will also learn and appreciate foreign films as
well.
Another documentary on
Netflix that is fascinating is Side by Side.
It is a documentary produced and narrated by Keanu Reeves that discusses the
debate between celluloid and digital filmmaking. A lot of directors are
interviewed on this documentary: James Cameron, David Fincher, David
Lynch, Robert Rodriguez, Martin Scorsese, the Wachowski “siblings”, Christopher
Nolan, George Lucas, and many more.
The 3-D debate
I have also found a lot of
debate in the YouTube would about 3-D and the debate over it. What I
heard about it in interviews is that James Cameron,
Peter Jackson, and George
Lucas is really pushing theaters for 3-D. James Cameron is pushing harder
for the higher frames per second on film, which
Peter Jackson did with “The
Hobbit” and has caused a lot of controversy over it. James Cameron wants
to make “Avatar 2” to be 60fps on his film.
James and Peter’s theory is
that the higher frame rate makes a 3-D film look clearer and brighter – with
more dimension and lack of dizziness.
Their vision or view is that
even though 3-D films are not as optimal right now, many audiences are not use
to the fact of 3-D films.
They think that it will
eventually be even better in the future, much like color getting better from
the old Technicolor to today’s prints.
I still have problems with
3-D personally. Physically I have a problem because I wear glasses.
Putting 3-D glasses over my regular glasses makes me look like something out of
“A Clockwork Orange”. Plus, I feel that 3-D takes away too much
from the art form of movie making and reduces it down to two hour carnival
rides. Try and imagine watching “Citizen Kane” or “The Godfather” in
3-D. What’s the point?
It emphasizes more on the
technical and not the artistic versions of film.
What I did not know when
watching the interviews between James Cameron, George Lucas, and some other
director, is how George Lucas got involved.
According to the interview,
George Lucas was not really enthralled with 3-D in the first place. What
he really wanted to do is to get all of the movie theaters to switch from
analog to digital projectors, so that the quality of the film will never
diminish after multiple viewings. (Side note: James Cameron said
that the Titanic would have been shown longer in theaters if it was not for the
film deteriorating after multiple viewings.) James Cameron and Peter Jackson
convinced George Lucas that the only way to get theaters to switch to digital
projectors is through 3-D. After that, and plus seeing scenes of Star
Wars: A New Hope converted into 3-D, he was convinced that 3-D is the
wave of the future, and joined Cameron’s bandwagon.
I have not heard yet from
anybody if they enjoy 3-D films or not. Many reviewers and film
historians that I read do not care for it. Yet there are others whom I
had arguments through blogs that 3-D is awesome and is here to stay.
What do you think about the
3-D phenomena?
Cinema Con 2011: James
Cameron and George Lucas interviews
James Cameron does have a big ego…
No comments:
Post a Comment