happygoluckyduck
Joined Nov 2004
Welcome to the new profile
We're still working on updating some profile features. To see the badges, ratings breakdowns, and polls for this profile, please go to the previous version.
Reviews25
happygoluckyduck's rating
Review:
Say what you will about its similarities to 'Pocahontas' or 'Fern Gully' or 'The Smurfs,' James Cameron's 'Avatar' is a film experience like no other. If it does not win every category for special effects at this year's Oscars I will hang up my hat and sail for strange new lands with better awards for films because I will know the Academy has no bearings on reality.
'Avatar' is James Cameron's first film since his 1997 megahit 'Titanic.' In some respects, 'Avatar' is a return home for James Cameron. He is at home in the science fiction genre having delivered us such gems as "Terminator" (1984) "Aliens" (1986) "The Abyss" (1989) and "Terminator 2: Judgment Day" (1991). But while those films depicted grizzly and bleak predictions for humanity, 'Avatar' invests itself in the concept of natural beauty and the necessity to save it.
We never go to earth in 'Avatar' but we meet many earthlings – all Americans – and we are informed that earth has been stripped barren of its natural resources. Subsequently, a giant military operation has been set up on Pandora, a distant planet lush with forests and seas and floating mountains. The military and earth's corporations seek to obtain a resource conveniently called unobtanium (want to guess if the humans succeed in getting it?). Pandora is rich in the element. Unfortunately, a great source of unobtanium is located right under a giant tree where the peaceful indigenous people of Pandora, the Na'vi, live.
The Na'vi are nine foot tall, blue humanoids with tails and yellow eyes. They commune with the nature of Pandora and generally live like composites of every indigenous people you could see in a movie. The invading humans have found that the best way to learn and communicate with the Na'vi is by using avatars - genetically engineered Na'vi clones that are controlled by the mind of American soldiers from a remote location. The hero of 'Avatar' is Jake Sully, a paraplegic ex-marine who's asked to become an avatar after his twin brother, who initially was to be the avatar, dies.
The film begins with Jake Sully arriving on Pandora. He meets the lead scientists in the Avatar program, Dr. Grace Augustine (Sigourney Weaver). She's a tough talking smoker scientist but she is one of the good guys, promoting the preservation of Pandora and the Na'vi culture. Jake also meets Colonel Miles Quaritch (Stephen Lang), a military man who has eyes only for his missions. As you can probably guess, he's the bad guy.
Jake Sully is put into his Avatar and immediately thrilled to be able to walk and have the prowess of a Na'vi. On his first mission though he becomes separated from the group and finds himself at the mercy of Pandora's not-too-hospitable woodland critters. He is saved by a beautiful Na'vi princess named Neytiri (Zoe Saldana). Soon Jake is integrated into Na'vi culture, practicing their many rituals and learning their language. He falls in love with Neytiri and after some love making decides the Na'vi way of life is not so bad.
Now, of course, the conflict is that Jake loves the Na'vi but he's in the service of a military that wants to destroy them and steal their unobtanium. Who will Jake side with - the war- like, profiteering humans or the peace loving blue people? Well, if you can't figure it out, I'll let it surprise you.
The special effects in 'Avatar' are why you should see this film. I have read that there are internet forums where people claim they feel depressed or even suicidal after seeing 'Avatar' because compared to Pandora, our world is a bit too dreary for them. At first I scoffed at this thought. I thought it was testament to how many people are living in a mindset a bit removed from reality. Now after seeing 'Avatar' I understand. The forests of Pandora are so wrought with detail you find yourself believing in it. The fantastical imagery are objectively absurd, but when rushed into the moments of their revelation, you become swept up in them. Particularly stunning are the floating mountain ranges, a geographical feature that's pure fantasy and yet might make sense in a region of reduced gravity.
"Avatar's" storyline is secondary to its effects. You can tell where James Cameron's interests were not primarily concerned with a new story. The narrative arc of an outsider becoming an insider and then fighting against the outsiders has been done many times before and it's been done better too. I found the characters to be underdeveloped and hard to sympathize with while the themes were overly developed to the point of hyperbole; anti-imperialism and preserving nature, while noble themes, are so in your face throughout the film, there is only one way to interpret 'Avatar.'
Usually a paragraph like the one preceding this would merit a bad review from me, but the visual effects of 'Avatar' are so stunning I can't help but give it a positive review. If you want pure escapism, and I mean pure, 'Avatar' is delicious and wonderful and that 160 minutes flies by,
Rating:
On a scale of one to Casablanca, this film is a "Un Chien Andalou" (1929)
Rationalization:
The vision will stick with me far longer than the story. In my mind, the story is secondary to the real story which is the fact that human innovation could produce such astonishing dreamscapes so comprehensively. James Cameron has always been a pioneer in the realm of special effects and this time he outdoes himself. Midway through 'Avatar' I believed in the Na'vi so thoroughly they were like real actors, occupying actual space. After Jar-Jar Binks and Golem, I was convinced that no CGI generated characters could never supplement actual actors or puppets but James Cameron has now made me believe.
Say what you will about its similarities to 'Pocahontas' or 'Fern Gully' or 'The Smurfs,' James Cameron's 'Avatar' is a film experience like no other. If it does not win every category for special effects at this year's Oscars I will hang up my hat and sail for strange new lands with better awards for films because I will know the Academy has no bearings on reality.
'Avatar' is James Cameron's first film since his 1997 megahit 'Titanic.' In some respects, 'Avatar' is a return home for James Cameron. He is at home in the science fiction genre having delivered us such gems as "Terminator" (1984) "Aliens" (1986) "The Abyss" (1989) and "Terminator 2: Judgment Day" (1991). But while those films depicted grizzly and bleak predictions for humanity, 'Avatar' invests itself in the concept of natural beauty and the necessity to save it.
We never go to earth in 'Avatar' but we meet many earthlings – all Americans – and we are informed that earth has been stripped barren of its natural resources. Subsequently, a giant military operation has been set up on Pandora, a distant planet lush with forests and seas and floating mountains. The military and earth's corporations seek to obtain a resource conveniently called unobtanium (want to guess if the humans succeed in getting it?). Pandora is rich in the element. Unfortunately, a great source of unobtanium is located right under a giant tree where the peaceful indigenous people of Pandora, the Na'vi, live.
The Na'vi are nine foot tall, blue humanoids with tails and yellow eyes. They commune with the nature of Pandora and generally live like composites of every indigenous people you could see in a movie. The invading humans have found that the best way to learn and communicate with the Na'vi is by using avatars - genetically engineered Na'vi clones that are controlled by the mind of American soldiers from a remote location. The hero of 'Avatar' is Jake Sully, a paraplegic ex-marine who's asked to become an avatar after his twin brother, who initially was to be the avatar, dies.
The film begins with Jake Sully arriving on Pandora. He meets the lead scientists in the Avatar program, Dr. Grace Augustine (Sigourney Weaver). She's a tough talking smoker scientist but she is one of the good guys, promoting the preservation of Pandora and the Na'vi culture. Jake also meets Colonel Miles Quaritch (Stephen Lang), a military man who has eyes only for his missions. As you can probably guess, he's the bad guy.
Jake Sully is put into his Avatar and immediately thrilled to be able to walk and have the prowess of a Na'vi. On his first mission though he becomes separated from the group and finds himself at the mercy of Pandora's not-too-hospitable woodland critters. He is saved by a beautiful Na'vi princess named Neytiri (Zoe Saldana). Soon Jake is integrated into Na'vi culture, practicing their many rituals and learning their language. He falls in love with Neytiri and after some love making decides the Na'vi way of life is not so bad.
Now, of course, the conflict is that Jake loves the Na'vi but he's in the service of a military that wants to destroy them and steal their unobtanium. Who will Jake side with - the war- like, profiteering humans or the peace loving blue people? Well, if you can't figure it out, I'll let it surprise you.
The special effects in 'Avatar' are why you should see this film. I have read that there are internet forums where people claim they feel depressed or even suicidal after seeing 'Avatar' because compared to Pandora, our world is a bit too dreary for them. At first I scoffed at this thought. I thought it was testament to how many people are living in a mindset a bit removed from reality. Now after seeing 'Avatar' I understand. The forests of Pandora are so wrought with detail you find yourself believing in it. The fantastical imagery are objectively absurd, but when rushed into the moments of their revelation, you become swept up in them. Particularly stunning are the floating mountain ranges, a geographical feature that's pure fantasy and yet might make sense in a region of reduced gravity.
"Avatar's" storyline is secondary to its effects. You can tell where James Cameron's interests were not primarily concerned with a new story. The narrative arc of an outsider becoming an insider and then fighting against the outsiders has been done many times before and it's been done better too. I found the characters to be underdeveloped and hard to sympathize with while the themes were overly developed to the point of hyperbole; anti-imperialism and preserving nature, while noble themes, are so in your face throughout the film, there is only one way to interpret 'Avatar.'
Usually a paragraph like the one preceding this would merit a bad review from me, but the visual effects of 'Avatar' are so stunning I can't help but give it a positive review. If you want pure escapism, and I mean pure, 'Avatar' is delicious and wonderful and that 160 minutes flies by,
Rating:
On a scale of one to Casablanca, this film is a "Un Chien Andalou" (1929)
Rationalization:
The vision will stick with me far longer than the story. In my mind, the story is secondary to the real story which is the fact that human innovation could produce such astonishing dreamscapes so comprehensively. James Cameron has always been a pioneer in the realm of special effects and this time he outdoes himself. Midway through 'Avatar' I believed in the Na'vi so thoroughly they were like real actors, occupying actual space. After Jar-Jar Binks and Golem, I was convinced that no CGI generated characters could never supplement actual actors or puppets but James Cameron has now made me believe.
Aliens are not often benevolent creatures in the movies. They tend to want earth or earthlings for food or some other devious end. But sometimes you meet nice aliens at the movies, like E.T. or the guys from "Close Encounters of the Third Kind" and it's refreshing. "*Batteries Not Included" may have the most munificent extra-terrestrials since the alien that didn't blow us up in "The Day the Earth Stood Still" (1951). They are robotic saucers from outer space, about the size of a hub cap. It is unclear whether they are biological or mechanical or both. They can be fixed by toaster parts but they can also give birth. Strange little fellows.
The story is set almost entirely in a condemned apartment building where various residents have resisted the buy-outs from an evil real estate developer. Though their homes are invaded and vandalized by hired street thugs, the long-time tenants of the building refuse to leave. These tenants include Frank Riley (Hume Cronyn), an old man whose whole life has been wrapped up in this building. He raised his family in this building and he owns a small diner on the first floor that has been his livelihood. His wife Faye (Jessica Tandy) is fading mentally, appearing to have a mish-mash of Alzheimer's and post traumatic stress disorder. Another tenant is Mason Baylor, a struggling artist who thinks the building has historical value. He brings a city examiner to assess whether the building is worth preserving and she promptly tells him it's in such a despicable condition she can't help him.
Enter the little guys. The saucers show up exactly when the tenant's situation looks to be most hopeless. They arrive at night and start lurking about the apartment building, plugging into electric sockets and fixing small things. Soon the tenants begin to notice that someone (or something) is doing renovation work on their building. They fix unfixable things like broken glass and tarnished wood. When it comes to pass that the tenants find out about these creatures, they understand that the saucers are here for their benefit and soon they become mutual allies.
What's so fun about "*Batteries Not Included" is seeing how these strange saucer robots actually become like real neighbors to the tenants. They help out at Frank's diner and aid in scaring away the neighborhood thugs. We get to see the saucers start a family and deal with tragedy and witness how their neighbors help them through. Essentially, the saucers become characters just as real as the tenants. And they're always fixing, fixing, fixing.
This is a good family film. At times it's a little scary and speaks to some dark truths (there is a robot miscarriage, which is weird, but touchingly sad). Ultimately though, it is a movie about the importance of community and about being a good neighbor, the sort of message that should be in a family film. Also, I should note, the last shot of the film is bittersweet and wonderful.
Rating:
On a scale of one to Casablanca, this film is a "The Secret of NIMH" (1982)
Rationalization:
When it comes to family entertainment I think its very important to have films that enlighten children not only to the wonders of existence, but also to the more fearful and sad side of things. Its also equally important to create stories that are complicated and engaging enough to keep the attention of adults. I suppose what I'm getting at is that a lot of family entertainments merely anesthetize everyone who watches them. It's good to seek out some good intentioned films like "*Batteries Not Included." Yes, its no masterpiece, but who cares?
The story is set almost entirely in a condemned apartment building where various residents have resisted the buy-outs from an evil real estate developer. Though their homes are invaded and vandalized by hired street thugs, the long-time tenants of the building refuse to leave. These tenants include Frank Riley (Hume Cronyn), an old man whose whole life has been wrapped up in this building. He raised his family in this building and he owns a small diner on the first floor that has been his livelihood. His wife Faye (Jessica Tandy) is fading mentally, appearing to have a mish-mash of Alzheimer's and post traumatic stress disorder. Another tenant is Mason Baylor, a struggling artist who thinks the building has historical value. He brings a city examiner to assess whether the building is worth preserving and she promptly tells him it's in such a despicable condition she can't help him.
Enter the little guys. The saucers show up exactly when the tenant's situation looks to be most hopeless. They arrive at night and start lurking about the apartment building, plugging into electric sockets and fixing small things. Soon the tenants begin to notice that someone (or something) is doing renovation work on their building. They fix unfixable things like broken glass and tarnished wood. When it comes to pass that the tenants find out about these creatures, they understand that the saucers are here for their benefit and soon they become mutual allies.
What's so fun about "*Batteries Not Included" is seeing how these strange saucer robots actually become like real neighbors to the tenants. They help out at Frank's diner and aid in scaring away the neighborhood thugs. We get to see the saucers start a family and deal with tragedy and witness how their neighbors help them through. Essentially, the saucers become characters just as real as the tenants. And they're always fixing, fixing, fixing.
This is a good family film. At times it's a little scary and speaks to some dark truths (there is a robot miscarriage, which is weird, but touchingly sad). Ultimately though, it is a movie about the importance of community and about being a good neighbor, the sort of message that should be in a family film. Also, I should note, the last shot of the film is bittersweet and wonderful.
Rating:
On a scale of one to Casablanca, this film is a "The Secret of NIMH" (1982)
Rationalization:
When it comes to family entertainment I think its very important to have films that enlighten children not only to the wonders of existence, but also to the more fearful and sad side of things. Its also equally important to create stories that are complicated and engaging enough to keep the attention of adults. I suppose what I'm getting at is that a lot of family entertainments merely anesthetize everyone who watches them. It's good to seek out some good intentioned films like "*Batteries Not Included." Yes, its no masterpiece, but who cares?
Review:
If I had to make a thematic comparison, I would say Andrew Proyas' 'Knowing' is the action film equivalent of '2001: A Space Odyssey' (1968). Though it is no masterpiece like '2001', 'Knowing' suggests the same thing '2001' did – that determinism and coincidence, intelligent design and natural selection - the great differing viewpoints on the nature of our existence - may not be at odds after all; they may be counterparts to a greater whole.
Nicholas Cage plays John Koestler, an MIT professor who has recently lost his wife. He lives in a beautiful but shabby home in Lexington, Massachusetts with his ten year old son Caleb (Chandler Canterbury). At Caleb's school there is a ceremony where a time capsule is opened. Fifty years earlier a classroom of students was asked to draw pictures of how they pictured the future and to place their pictures in this time capsule. Lucinda, (Lara Robinson), a seemingly disturbed child in the class does not draw the future. Instead she lists a seemingly chaotic sequence of numbers. Now, fifty years later, John Koestler gets a hold of this list through his son and begins to see an alarming pattern emerge from the numbers.
In some respects, 'Knowing' is similar to popular contemporary mysteries like, say, 'The Da Vinci Code.' The main course of the film follows Koestler as he scampers throughout the east coast trying to find clues to what's going on and reassuring himself that the list of numbers means what he thinks it means. Along the way Koestler encounters Diane Wayland (Rose Byrne), the daughter of the numbers-writer Lucinda, and Diane's daughter Abby (Lara Robinson again). They embark on a mission to find the missing clues for discovering the secret of the numbers. All the while they are being pursued by mysterious, pale men called 'the whisper people' by Caleb and Abby.
Like in Andrew Proyas' previous films 'Dark City' (1998) and "I, Robot" (2004) there is both visual and philosophical food for thought at work here. The central question of 'Knowing' is clearly stated at the beginning of the film by Cage's character when he asks his students in a lecture whether they think the universe is inherently deterministic or a series of random events. As we know, determinism suggests a higher intelligence controls existence while randomness implicates a meaningless sequence of accidents led to our existence.
I've always thought determinism excluding randomness and vice versa is a limited way to think about the nature of things. We have such a frustrating inclination to seek out mutually exclusive answers. For me, 'Knowing' suggests that the universe is in fact deterministic on a grand scale but that determinism is fueled by smaller, random occurrences, if that makes any sense. The end is already written but it is only reached through the decisions of individuals trying to avoid that very end.
Rating:
On a scale of one to Casablanca, this film is a "Big Fish" (2003).
Rationalization:
To express my honest opinion about this film, I'd say I thought the ideas it evokes are more intriguing than the film itself. This is not necessarily a bad thing. Most films do not attempt to evoke cosmic ideas at all. Most films only evoke the idea that love is good. 'Knowing' is a thought provoking film that banks on time honored sleuth plot devices. Some of the disaster sequences are exquisite though, especially the plane crash and the final disaster. I would even go so far as to say that the final ten minutes of the movie is what elevates 'Knowing' above most mystery-thrillers. The last ten minutes are visionary. They made me think back to "2001: A Space Odyssey." And yet, when I think about "2001: A Space Odyssey" I must admit that 'Knowing' pales in comparison.
If I had to make a thematic comparison, I would say Andrew Proyas' 'Knowing' is the action film equivalent of '2001: A Space Odyssey' (1968). Though it is no masterpiece like '2001', 'Knowing' suggests the same thing '2001' did – that determinism and coincidence, intelligent design and natural selection - the great differing viewpoints on the nature of our existence - may not be at odds after all; they may be counterparts to a greater whole.
Nicholas Cage plays John Koestler, an MIT professor who has recently lost his wife. He lives in a beautiful but shabby home in Lexington, Massachusetts with his ten year old son Caleb (Chandler Canterbury). At Caleb's school there is a ceremony where a time capsule is opened. Fifty years earlier a classroom of students was asked to draw pictures of how they pictured the future and to place their pictures in this time capsule. Lucinda, (Lara Robinson), a seemingly disturbed child in the class does not draw the future. Instead she lists a seemingly chaotic sequence of numbers. Now, fifty years later, John Koestler gets a hold of this list through his son and begins to see an alarming pattern emerge from the numbers.
In some respects, 'Knowing' is similar to popular contemporary mysteries like, say, 'The Da Vinci Code.' The main course of the film follows Koestler as he scampers throughout the east coast trying to find clues to what's going on and reassuring himself that the list of numbers means what he thinks it means. Along the way Koestler encounters Diane Wayland (Rose Byrne), the daughter of the numbers-writer Lucinda, and Diane's daughter Abby (Lara Robinson again). They embark on a mission to find the missing clues for discovering the secret of the numbers. All the while they are being pursued by mysterious, pale men called 'the whisper people' by Caleb and Abby.
Like in Andrew Proyas' previous films 'Dark City' (1998) and "I, Robot" (2004) there is both visual and philosophical food for thought at work here. The central question of 'Knowing' is clearly stated at the beginning of the film by Cage's character when he asks his students in a lecture whether they think the universe is inherently deterministic or a series of random events. As we know, determinism suggests a higher intelligence controls existence while randomness implicates a meaningless sequence of accidents led to our existence.
I've always thought determinism excluding randomness and vice versa is a limited way to think about the nature of things. We have such a frustrating inclination to seek out mutually exclusive answers. For me, 'Knowing' suggests that the universe is in fact deterministic on a grand scale but that determinism is fueled by smaller, random occurrences, if that makes any sense. The end is already written but it is only reached through the decisions of individuals trying to avoid that very end.
Rating:
On a scale of one to Casablanca, this film is a "Big Fish" (2003).
Rationalization:
To express my honest opinion about this film, I'd say I thought the ideas it evokes are more intriguing than the film itself. This is not necessarily a bad thing. Most films do not attempt to evoke cosmic ideas at all. Most films only evoke the idea that love is good. 'Knowing' is a thought provoking film that banks on time honored sleuth plot devices. Some of the disaster sequences are exquisite though, especially the plane crash and the final disaster. I would even go so far as to say that the final ten minutes of the movie is what elevates 'Knowing' above most mystery-thrillers. The last ten minutes are visionary. They made me think back to "2001: A Space Odyssey." And yet, when I think about "2001: A Space Odyssey" I must admit that 'Knowing' pales in comparison.