Avatar 2 and The Return of Avatar

There will be a sequel to the massively successful Avatar and honestly, is anyone out there surprised? According to inmovies.ca, director James Cameron will be focusing on creating a different environment for viewers:

I'm going to be focusing on the ocean on Pandora, which will be equally rich and diverse and crazy and imaginative, but it just won't be a rain forest.

-Cameron

The article also states that Avatar will be returning to theatres in late summer, likely August 2010, and likely in Imax (no word if it'll be Imax 3D but that's probably a given). So if you want more of the Na'vi and seeing it on blu-ray/dvd isn't enough; you'll get your chance to see it again on the big big screen this summer. No word on the title or projected release date of Avatar 2.

You're All Late For Tea!

Alice in Wonderland (3D) directed by Tim Burton, starring Johnny Depp, Helena Bonham Carter, Anne Hathaway and new comer, Mia Wasikowska.

The Story:

Alice is now 19 years old and on the day of her engagement, stumbles down the rabbit hole and returns to Underland (misheard by Alice and believed to be called Wonderland), a place she had previously visited as a child. She is told by Underland's inhabitants (a collection of weird characters including the White Queen, the Cheshire Cat and of course, the Mad Hatter) that she is the only one who can destroy the Jabberwocky and subsequently end the Red Queen's reign of terror on Underland.

It was determined long before the teaser trailer was released that we would be seeing Alice in Wonderland. It was a no-brainer. With Tim Burton at the helm and Johnny Depp in front of the camera, it was sure to be a fantastic. The strengths of this film were obvious from the start: it's Disney, it's Tim Burton (which in turn results in an always stellar cast), it's 3D and it's an incredible, well-known story. However, there were concerns on whether Burton could create a new story from an already classic one. As we all know, it's hard to change something that people already adore. Burton not only managed to create a new story that worked, he was also able to do so in a way that stayed true to a lot of the elements that made the original story so memorable.

As mentioned before, we are quite hesitant to watch 3D movies unless we can justify that it is actually worth it for the "powers that be" to make the film 3D. For example: a good 3D movie does not just make things seem like they are flying at you because they can, ie Clash of the Titans. A good 3D movie makes you feel like you are on a thrill ride (if that is the angle they are going for) OR it enhances the movie goer's experience with the film by strengthening the image quality and making the film seem more life like. Alice in Wonderland falls in the category of the latter, and did so magnificently.

The scenes were breathtaking - not in an Avatar-Pandora type of way, where the film makers (computers may be a better choice of word here since it is clear that Avatar was basically created on a computer screen and transfered to the movie screen, but I digress...) spent hours depicting the "wonder" and "splendor" that is Pandora. The scenes in Alice were used to enhance the storyline and to make you feel as if you too, had fallen down the rabbit hole.

The movie had it's typical "Burton-esque" feel to it: it was dark, gloomy and of course, eerie. The characters, though hard to change because of their notorioty in our culture, had an odd twist to their personalities. Whether it was Anne Hathaway's "cute but psycho" (as she called it) White Queen or Johnny Depp's extreme multiple personalities as the Mad Hatter. The characters were delightfully odd and intriguing and for the most part, quite comical.

Overall, I would highly recommend watching this film - in 3D would be best, but 2D would suffice.

IMDB here
Rotten Tomatoes here
Official Movie Site here

Clash of the Titans (3D)

Clash of the Titans starring Sam Worthington, Liam Neeson, Ralph Fiennes, Gemma Arterton and directed by Louis Leterrier in 3D.

Due to the previously posted article with Leterrier we wanted to see the 2D version but the only time that worked out was for the 3D showing. On the one hand, I'm glad that we could see the 3D converted movie for ourselves, but on the other hand it really was bad in certain sections. Overall it wasn't terrible but there were distinct moments where the perspective is clearly wrong to the eye. It's particularly noticeable during close-ups of actor's faces, where the face itself is clear but the hair, jawline, and ears seem a little too far away from the face. The only other time I really noticed a flaw was during a scene with a horse where it is pawing/digging at the ground and its front two legs are doubled momentarily. The 3D isn't spectacular and doesn't add much to the movie. Often I found it distracting as the eye will pick up on something that isn't quite right but disappears as quickly as it came. Stick with the 2D unless you're a huge fan of 3D.

For a movie called Clash of the Titans there are surprisingly few titans or gods in the movie so if you're hoping for a real clash of titans, this isn't it. That is not to say that the movie isn't enjoyable, or there aren't some neat god-like powers demonstrated, just that it's more about Perseus (Worthington) and his humanity than anything else. As usual, it seems that Sam Worthington can only perform two faces: angry, and blank. From Terminator Salvation to Avatar to Clash of the Titans, the roles are not exactly demonstrating his range as an actor. Neeson plays Zeus, king of the gods, and Fiennes is Hades, his brother and god of the underworld. The two are feuding over the fate of humanity as some citizens of Greece have decided that they no longer need to honour the gods. Neeson as Zeus is predictable but enjoyable. However, Fiennes as Hades is eerily like his performances in the Harry Potter series as Voldemort. The voice, the mannerisms, the whole "dark lord" bit, it's all there. Maybe the casting of Fiennes isn't so surprising because both the Harry Potter series and Clash of the Titans are Warner Brothers productions.

Overall Clash of the Titans is what you'd expect from a summer blockbuster. It's big on special effects and light on character development. I enjoyed the mythological aspect, but don't look for accuracy in the retellings of the myths (in the film, Zeus, not Prometheus, created humans) or hope for a lot of gods fighting amongst themselves. It is an entertaining movie and the fight scenes are spaced regularly enough that you won't get bored. See it (in 2D), but only if you're in the mood for more-or-less mindless entertainment. If you can't stand summer action movie fluff - skip it.

IMDB here

Rotten Tomatoes here

official movie site here

Tyler Perry: The Mogul Outside the Machine (from CNN)

Came across this article from CNN this afternoon describing the success of director Tyler Perry. His latest Why Did I Get Married, Too? grossed $29 million (US) in America this weekend. It's a shame it's so hard to find a theatre within an hour's drive that will play his movies, I think it's incredibly interesting how a man is making films that are geared towards women and is doing it so well. While he may have that "built-in audience" who will see anything he makes just because his name is on it, that's not as bad as it sounds. Having a loyal following means you can get your next movie made with less risk. And and the more "women's" movies that are made, the more that can be made in the future, perhaps some by women, and be taken seriously. Until then, keep your eye on Tyler Perry, he may surprise you.


CNN article by Breeanna Hare, special to CNN

Warner Brothers 3D not up to snuff? What about Harry?

In an intriguing statement, director Louis Leterrier has stated that he is not satisfied with the 3D conversion Warner Brothers studios applied in post-production to his latest film Clash of the Titans.

Listen, it was not my intention to do it in 3D; it was not my decision to convert it in 3D.

...

Conversions, they all look like this. "Alice in Wonderland" looks like this. Remember the technology was not ready, so it's Warner Brothers saying we are giving you the best of what we can do.

(read the rest of the interview here)

So it is a money-grab on the part of the studio, but that isn't what's bothering me (though it is a disturbing reality in the movie business). It's the thought that Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows is going to look just as bad because of the Warner Brothers 3D conversion processes. Not only was HP7 split into two films, likely due in equal parts to the complex plot of the final book and the desire to make as big a profit as possible, but it's going to be converted into 3D. Why is this necessary? I don't understand why the final installment(s) of the series need to be visually different from the previous films. It's a SERIES and as such, should remain consistent throughout. I was completely underwhelmed with the prospect of Deathly Hallows in 3D, and now I'm totally against the idea. According to a director, the technology isn't good enough for conversion (as opposed to filming in 3D with two cameras) without making the movie feel like a Viewmaster image.

For shame, Warner Brothers, for shame. You can ruin other movies but Harry Potter fans will not stand for you detracting from the most anticipated films of the series: the final battle between Harry and Voldemort. I won't be paying to see it in 3D, and neither should you.