Avatar - "The Battles Yellow Spaceship Takes Them To Pepperland's Blue Meanies"

Written and Directed by James Cameron

Have you ever been so engrossed in a world created in fiction that you live it, breathe it, and even dream about it? This reviewer certainly has. But Avatar, the new film from James (Titanic, The Terminator) Cameron, is not that film. Notoriously many years in the making, Avatar tells the archetypical story of Jake Sully (Sam Worthington), a marine who has lost the use of his legs that now finds himself on a far off moon called Pandora. His twin brother, who was a scientist, was meant to “pilot” an Avatar, or mock body of the extremely tall, lanky and blue native aliens called The Na’vi. Unfortunately, this brother dies and the Avatars are expensive to develop, so they recruit Jake to be the new Avatar.

Quite predictably, the film is filled with the stereotypes of this type of picture. The military leader who Jake turns on to fulfill his destiny as “the one” and reveals himself as the ultimate villain, the small band of outsiders who assist Jake, the foreign woman he falls for and whose native people he saves, the man she was supposed to marry that first is opposed to this outsider but bows his allegiance to him after being bested, etc. Naturally everything wraps up in a nice little package. The plot is hardly a notch above what one may find late at night on the SyFy channel.

The dialogue is even worse. This reviewer would like you to take a moment to look up any quotes from the film. Any at all. Now simply read them. Here are some of my favorites:

Neytiri: You are Omaticaya now. You may make your bow from the wood of Hometree. And you may choose a woman. We have many fine women. Ninat is the best singer.
Jake Sully: I don't want Ninat.
Neytiri: Peyral is a good hunter.
Jake Sully: Yes, she is a good hunter. But I've already chosen. But this woman must also choose me.
Neytiri: [smiles] She already has.
[They kiss]

Also, Col. Quaritch: This low gravity makes you soft. You get soft and Pandora will shit you out dead with zero warning.

What’s worse than the line written on a page is how they are delivered. Sam Worthington has an Australian accent for 90% of the movie but is supposed to be American. The Na’vi call the humans “sky people” but are otherwise able to speak English quite well. Each subsequent Na’vi who spoke English further drove home the idiocy of having such nonsense phrases. The entire concept of Na’vi speaking English in the first place is nonsensical until we learn that Segourney Weaver as Dr. Grace Augustine (who I believe is also the name of amnesia surviving murderess on some daytime soap opera) at one point had a school for them. Though apparently only the lead female, Neytiri (Zoe Saldana) and her mother attended it.

Giovanni Ribisi, an actor whose work I usually enjoy, has absolutely nothing to do the entire film. The resolution of his character is literally a sad look. Ribisi’s character, Parker Selfridge (I think he was the prom king on Beverly Hills 90210) wants to tear up the Na’vi’s hometree for a rare mineral called Unobtaneum. This is Science Fiction and any ridiculous name is pretty much game. But calling an unobtainable mineral Unobtaneum is stupefyingly obvious, something that Cameron seems to not care about holding back from at all during the film. After all, we are told about it by a selfish character named Selfridge. And some of the first words we hear in the film are “You are not in Kansas anymore… you are on Pandora”, which means that apparently in the future that a phrase that has permeated the consciousness to mean “you are no longer at home” has to be explained with a follow up to tell you where in fact you are.

Navi is a Hebrew word that means prophet. This may be the most subtle thing about the religion and spirituality that Cameron has laid before us. It is an anti-jingoistic combination of every colonized native nation from recent history, somehow excepting Islam. This is bizarre, since the parable is obviously a reflection of the current occupation by western countries of oil-rich Middle-Eastern countries. Perhaps parable is too strong a word, since it is sitting on the surface the entire time, to the point of the term “shock and awe” being used by the military here. But this still seems like a backhanded love letter to “native religions”. Of course they are “wise” but they don’t wear clothes (perhaps the technology just doesn’t exist yet to put some pants on?) and they cannot possibly fight back with anything more powerful than spears and arrows. That is, unless you include the deus ex machina that literally comes in the form of the animals we are taught to fear and then appreciate rallying for the forces of the planet. Of all the religious concepts that have been so apparently plucked for use here, modesty is not one of them, and so any Abrahamic religious concepts also go out the door with it as well.

The one thing the film has going for it is the technology behind it. The performance capture system that has been developed for this film is in fact the next step for the technology and James Cameron has to be applauded for taking the time to shepherd it. Give the man a technical Oscar and nothing more. Compare this to Robert Zemeckis’ A Christmas Carol from this year (or his other recent films) and you’ll see that while that was intentionally a performance captured cartoon, it doesn’t hold a candle in terms of communicating movement or acting. The tech on display here is now a step beyond the previous standard, Gollum from The Lord of the Ring films. But how much more impressive is it than Peter Jackson’s King Kong himself, who Andy Serkis also portrayed in the performance capture studio in 2005? Perhaps the five years in the making Avatar finally got off the ground because Cameron was convinced the technology existed once Peter Jackson’s Weta Digital developed it. After all, Weta Digital is one of the lead visual effects studios on Avatar. Anyone who tells you that what is on display in this film is unlike anything they’ve ever seen hasn’t been paying attention to creature effects animation since 1993, when Jurassic Park set the (still holding up against many successors) bar. The film also makes a complete misstep by having the characters (and supposedly the audience by extension) have their breath taken away about halfway into the film by some floating mountains. But the joke is, the sometimes impressive world of Pandora has a million and one things that we the audience have already swooned over at this point which crown any kind of anti-gravity rock piles. It is a completely superfluous scene that serves only to set up the silly zone of electrical disturbance.

But hey, it’s in 3-D! Obviously, the thrill of the entire film is the 3-D itself. One of the best films of this past year was Pixar’s Up, which like many other CG animated films released recently, was presented in 3-D theatrically. The beauty of Up in 3-D was that there was an added depth to the visual spectrum, an extra element that could immerse you that much more in the world. It was never obtrusive or in your face. One might forget that they are witnessing 3-D in action, and at the time of seeing it I lauded such use of the tool as the future of the medium. At times Avatar falls into this added depth of field, but just as you settle into it, the balance is upset by psych-out gags that made 3-D tiresome fifty years ago. If there is one reason to see the film, it is to see it in 3-D. Unfortunately almost three hours of this, even with updated technology, still gave this reviewer terrible eye strain.

James Cameron can’t separate himself from the same themes, obsessions and holes he falls into every time including but not limited to: evil corporations, mech-suits, tough as nails females, competing male suitors who are wild cards, and an idealized idea of what a future/space soldier is. One should be clear though that just because there are archetypes at work here doesn’t make the film bad. The Matrix, the “Avatar of its decade” if you will, followed a somewhat similar path. However, what separates the wheat from the chaff is how they are utilized. While the Matrix relied on a strong story that could lend itself to both popcorn adventure and subtle nuanced concepts augmented by groundbreaking visuals, Avatar uses the visual artistry on display to distract the audience from a hollow morality play that not only is familiar, but heavy-handed. It is a blindfold in three dimensions.

** Two stars – Watch it if you Must.

Avatar is now playing in theaters. It won the Golden Globe awards for Best Director and Best Picture – Drama.

 

The Hurt Locker - "Selfless Selfishness"

Written by Mark Boal
Directed by Kathryn Bigelow

The Hurt Locker, Kathryn Bigelow and Mark Boal’s film about a bomb dismantling unit in Iraq is an odd duck. What separates it (positively or negatively) from most films about the modern American involvement in the Middle East is that the idea of politics never enters the scene. It is purely an action film disguised as a suspenseful war film. It doesn’t have satire, it doesn’t have a sense of loss, it is a film that follows men, (particularly one man – SSgt. William James, well-played by Jeremy Renner) who are doing a job. This job just happens to be one of the most high risk and life threatening occupations possible.

James doesn’t enter the scene until we have already met Sgt. JT Sanborn (Anthony Mackie) and Spc. Owen Eldridge (Brian Geraghty), who along with their team leader (a cameo from Guy Pearce) play by the rules. They always send in the robot first to assess the possible explosive device. If they need to, the leader will suit up and go in to dismantle the bomb himself. It is precisely this situation that sets forth the template for every “adventure” thereafter and leads to James joining Sanborn and Eldridge. Every member of a bomb squad has to be a bit crazy, but James sets a new standard. He literally lives for this stuff, to a fault. He discards the use of the robot, and even the protective suit at times. He makes decisions that endanger his team, at least in the eyes of Sanborn, with whom he butts heads.

Unfortunately, while James is the gung-ho Die Hard “doesn’t play by the rules” action character that we all idolize in movies, placing him into “reality” essentially makes him the villain of the film in this reviewer’s humble opinion. It forces a bizarro twist on the archetype, where he is praised by his superiors in the Army (David Morse, the second of several cameos from known actors including Ralph Fiennes and Lost’s Evangeline Lilly) while his team contemplates simply getting rid of him because of his recklessness. He deserves the “f*** you” he receives as last words from one of his team members. The worst offense of all seems to be that he is a completely selfish jerk to his family. A scene late in the film of his restless civilian life could have been a flashback to before he joined in for his first tour of duty in Iraq. Instead, it rather bluntly is not.

Sanborn may hate James, but Eldridge isn’t quite sure what to make of any of him. Eldridge is the one main character who is simply a good person and he is treated like crap as a result. He puts trust in his superiors, questions baseless violence, and tries to be the best damn soldier he can be. His reward is that he is portrayed as the one person in the film who is seeking psychological counseling. This isn’t just the film reflecting James’ view of him, as someone who has to be pushed to the edge in order to make him a better person, but essentially the film is attacking anyone who feels like Eldridge feels. The resolution for his character is fairly unsympathetic and should be a moment to root for the hero “beating” the villain but instead it plays more like a “good riddance to someone who wasn’t cut out for Iraq in the first place”.

The film is great for reflecting James’ cocksure attitude but at fault for glorifying it. It is sending a bad message about adrenaline rushes. The fact that James will never quit on an IED challenge makes him praiseworthy, but when you realize it is all for him and not the safety of those around him you can’t help but feel saddened. As long as the bomb gets dismantled, does the reason matter? Well when James does fail, is he beating himself up about it because a person died or because he failed himself? James does have his moments of selflessness, though they are few and far between. He cares deeply for a local “base rat” called Beckham and is willing to endanger himself to protect him. Unfortunately, the fact he would go to such lengths for this foreign boy while hanging up on a long distance call with his own wife reflects his completely backwards sense of honor.

As much as this reviewer would like to be able to sit back and just go along for the ride with a well made action-drama about bomb dismantlers who face a new exciting challenge each episode, there has to be more going on beneath the surface. To ignore that is to ignore the idea that film is an art form capable of brilliant levels of subtext. The film makes a case that it is worth having someone abandon every other aspect of life for the one thing they are good at if it helps save lives, but does he have to be such a jerk? Whether it is being accurate to the type of person one has to be to exist under this kind of pressure on a day to day basis or not, there is a terribly mixed message about responsibilities for one’s self and those that care about them.


***1/2 Three and a half stars – Take it or leave it

The Hurt Locker was released on DVD and Blu-ray this week. It is nominated for 3 Golden Globe awards, for Best Director, Best Screenplay and Best Picture- Drama. It has also been nominated for and won countless other awards and accolades.

The Messenger - "Recieved"

Written by Alessandro Camon & Oren Moverman
Directed by Oren Moverman

The opening shot of The Messenger isn’t that important. In fact, there is hardly a sole image that may sit in your mind when looking back at the film. But man, there will be a feeling. And it will stay with you for a long time. Staff Sgt. Will Montgomery (Ben Foster) is recovering from injuries he sustained in Iraq including a scarred eye and a slightly gimpy leg. For the last three months before he is released from the Army, he has been assigned casualty notification duty, to inform next of kin that their family member has died in service. His new partner, Captain Tony Stone (Woody Harrelson) is a tough man assigned to how him the ropes in what is often a terribly stressful job. They must stick to the script, be clear and precise about the death of the individual, and get the news to the family before they could find out from some news outlet or alternative source.

Part of the trauma of the position is that they are representing the U.S. Armed Forces, and as such must follow a protocol to not touch or get emotionally involved with the next of kin. They cannot inform anyone but the listed next of kin. They never know how someone will react to the news, and the film shows a variety of the kinds of things people go through when being informed of such disheartening information. Sometimes it is a slap to the face of the officer, sometimes it is being spat at. Sometimes a person will become sick to their stomach. All of these possibilities must be accounted for and expected, and that’s why it is so odd when Stone and Montgomery inform a woman named Olivia (Samantha Morton) of her husband’s death and she reacts with certain nonchalance.

Olivia and her son become a sort of obsession for Montgomery. But despite the synopsis or the advertising, the film is hardly about his relationship with her or the fact that his trying to start a forbidden relationship with a widow he recently informed. Above all else, this is an excellent account of how war is still very much a battle even when you are “home”. Stone and Montgomery reflect this throughout, and the ways they handle the stresses therein are the real lynchpin of it all.

Foster plays Montgomery as a sort of everyman. This could be any soldier’s story, and the location that the film takes place in is never defined - a sort of general America. This is a key component of the film, because although we are drawn to the extremely dynamic performances on the screen by Foster and Harrelson, we are so enamored because they present themselves not as actors but as people. Foster is sort of quiet through the opening scenes of the film (for good reason) but I hung on his every word because I was curious whether Montgomery was being portrayed as a stereotypical movie soldier farm boy or with some sort of southern accent. In not going this route and giving him a flat Middle American voice, the fact that this could be any soldier’s story is furthered in a subtle but relevant way. Montgomery has anger issues, problems with abandonment, probably drinks too much, and general frustrations that plague a man who has seen the worst the world has to offer in war. Yet he is intelligent, does his job, and sometimes needs to just blow off some steam. The same can be said of Harrelson’s Stone (though he does natively have a southern accent), who is similarly great in his essential supporting role which has been nominated for a Golden Globe award.

One scene portrays a soldier who is having a welcome home party in a bar, and we see it all through Montgomery’s eyes. Similarly, the first time that he and Stone go to report a death in the family, it would have been just as easy to focus the camera on the tragedy- the wild outburst of tears and crippling pain on the faces of the next of kin. But instead the camera stays steadily on the stern and unchanging face of Montgomery who is clearly going through a baptism of sorts. It is only once he has become comfortable in the mission that the camera loosens up a bit and focuses on the mourners more. This was possibly the wisest camera choice in the whole film, next to a scene of Montgomery and Olivia in her kitchen that plays out in one long take.

Sound also has a large presence in the film, arguably more than the visuals. The music that Montgomery (or Stone) listens to is never mentioned, save a neighbor yelling to turn it down. But it is a great decision to have it be a constant stream of hard-rock, all of which seems slightly behind the times. The general sound design in the film often accentuates the mood, sometimes to add a small moment of anticipation or suspense as we wait for the visuals to catch up to what we are hearing. A voice, an approaching person, something unexpected, we often hear these things before it steps on screen. Perhaps this is a subtle allusion to Montgomery’s own eye trauma. If so, it is brilliantly conceived and executed, as it never grabs your attention unless you pick up on it.

Director Owen Moverman and his co-writer Alessandro Camos have brought an intellect to the post-war experience. Being Israeli, Moverman’s own experiences as a paratrooper must have contributed to this understanding. Living in a country where everyone you know has served in the military, you see all the forms people can take after the fact. Yet, this film has very distinctly American details- a scene where Stone and Montgomery sing “Home on the Range”, for instance (which subsequently Willie Nelson plays over the end credits). The fact that neither Moverman nor Camos, who is Italian, are American-born matters as they are evidently wise observers of American life. Just as the Montgomery is the everyman and the setting is anywhere, the experiences of loss and finding a balance are universal.


****1/2 Four and a half stars – Definitely see this film

The Messenger is still playing in limited release. For a list of where it may be playing near you, see the list on this site or check your local listings.

Cloudy With a Chance of Meatballs - "For Cast, Good, with Pratfalls"

Screenplay and Directed by Phil Lord and Chris Miller

Way back in the distant past known as 2002, MTV was already making the transition from music videos to more half hour programming and Total Request Live was at the height of popularity. There was an animated program that lasted only one season that almost no one watched called “Clone High” and it was the brain child of Phil Lord, Chris Miller, and Bill Lawrence. Lawrence, who was coming off the success of Michael J. Fox-starrer Spin City, was also launching his eventual hit Scrubs at this time, and ‘High’ had almost the entire cast of Scrubs voicing characters. Clone High was absurd, hilarious and had a great twist on science much like its spiritual brother, Miller and Lord’s latest project Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs.

‘Cloudy’ is a freeform prequel to the classic children’s book it is based on, an even looser take than Spike Jonze’s Where The Wild Things Are. It sets up a completely new story in the ‘Meatballs’ world, showing in essence how the rain of food first began in the town of Chewandswallow, primarily a sardine fishing town before the rain began. Our hero is one Flint Lockwood (SNL’s Bill Hader), a young man who has known since he was a boy that he would be a great inventor. Naturally, all of his inventions are humorously ill-conceived, like spray on shoes (that can never be taken off) or “rat-birds”, which now plague the town. One day the world realizes that Sardines are gross and the fishing industry all but dries up, leaving the entire town to sustain themselves on an exclusive diet of the salty mini-fish.

Flint decides to make a machine which converts simple water into all the foods that the town never gets to eat. He and his monkey sidekick Steve (Neil Patrick Harris) plan to unveil the device while the town is gathered for the Mayor’s presentation of a new Sardine Land to promote tourism for the remote island town. Through a series of events everything goes awry and the machine ends up in sky, where it begins feeding on the precipitation of clouds and causing a rain of whatever foods Flint requests of it from his computer. A perky young weathergirl named Sam Sparks (Anna Faris) gets involved, and is now covering the ongoing unique meteorological events and brings about one of the best lines of the film, “You may have seen a meteor shower, but I bet you've never seen a shower "meatier" than this.”

Naturally, everything goes to hell by the third act. The story is weak and predictable but it is precisely the above quoted type of pun-laden and blink-and-you-miss-it humor that helps keep the film afloat like a sandwich boat. Most of the credit can be attributed to the cast that Lord and Miller have assembled, who know how deliver the lines to maximally accentuate this heavily cartoonish world. While this reviewer has a low opinion of celebrity casts in general, which take jobs away from excellent voice actors, no one here is too showy. In fact, it came as a surprise who was actually voicing most of the characters when the end credits rolled (James Caan played Flint’s father?!). Frankly, who could have predicted that Neil Patrick Harris was behind the talking monkey Steve, who mostly just says his own name in a computerized voice via monkey thought translator? The only celebrity who made their presence known during the course of the film is Mr. T as Earl, because frankly, you always know Mr. T when you hear him.

Animation’s possibilities are fully taken advantage of as characters like Earl have a Tex Avery-like elasticity to their movements. I would also say that the color palette throughout is as wonderfully colorful as the characters who inhabit this world. Clearly, a lot of work went into the accurate rendering of food, and things like how a cheeseburger would fall apart as it hits the ground. While Disney pioneered the animation of humans and animals, I would say that ‘Meatballs’ has reaches a new pedestal for food animation (as silly as that may be). Though the film was clearly made for a 3D presentation (and was released as such this year), there are never gags that rely solely on that and detract from the 2D presentation of the film. In fact, the depth of field that is beginning to develop in CG animated films in general as a result of thinking for 3D is, in this reviewer’s humble opinion, a step forward for the whole medium. While this is not the strongest animated film this year, it is a fun movie, something to watch when you want to relax.


*** Three Stars – Take it or leave it

Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs releases today on DVD and Blu-ray Disc. It has been nominated for a Best Animated Feature Golden Globe Award.

Up in the Air - “Grounded, With Its Head in the Clouds”

Screenplay by Jason Reitman and Sheldon Turner
Directed by Jason Reitman


Jason Reitman makes films about modern people. There is a common theme to his work that focuses on the slight outsider, the one who is living life as we now begin to define it, making their own rules in the ever evolving landscape of American life. His third and latest film, Up in the Air, follows Ryan Bingham (George Clooney), a man who fires people for a living. He lives city to city, flight to flight, frequent flier mile to frequent flier mile and enjoys every moment of it all. He is great at his job and resents the presence of a young upstart named Natalie Keener (Anna Kendrick) who is trying to restructure the way his business works. Along the way Ryan also meets Alex (Vera Farmiga), another perpetual plane-dweller who sparks a casual love interest and is a partner in getting laid over in any random city.

Timeliness seems essential to this film. Unlike many films which strive (and fail) to remain timeless, ‘Air’ is rather proud of steaking the ground and claiming itself as a reflection of the current economic and social climate of the U.S.A. Post-9/11 difficulties in air travel (and how to avoid them) are something that few films have addressed with such skill. When Natalie shows up at the airport planning to travel like a person would have ten or twenty years ago, she is scorned. Natalie also brings a major theme of modern technology to the table in pushing for webchat-enabled remote firings which would slash the company’s travel budget and Bingham’s hopes to stay airborne for the rest of his life. Bingham, who is oft-reminded of his being old in the film, represents a level of face to face interaction that can never be replaced. While the rest of the world might cling to their wife or kids for their few minutes away from a screen, he is happy to actually be surrounded by people all day (even if they have a fake level of courtesy or are complete strangers). As much as he may use his smart phone or laptop, he has no cubicle or office to be stuck in.

The first act really flies. The editing is quick paced and top notch as we are acquainted with the single serving life that Bingham leads. This sets up a recurring theme throughout the film where “baggage” is used both literally and metaphorically. He preaches this level of solitude in a traveling seminar where he tells you to not carry the weight of anything in life that can’t fit in your little backpack. Bingham only owns one set of clothes which come with him at all times in his durable, precisely laid out suitcase. He has estranged himself from family, shows no signs of having friends, and seems quite happy to be at a loss of all the things people complain are depending on them when they get fired.

There are three sequences with real laid off workers throughout the film (telling their horror stories, not being fired on camera). The first two of these are fairly seamlessly cut together with a scene of an actor (Zach Galifianakis, J.K. Simmons) interacting with Bingham and the events at hand. The performances of the actors shown against real people are strong enough that they flow without a hitch, a credit both to the director and these two fine character actors. The third sequence is the same people we have seen previously discussing how their lives really did get a positive new focus after being fired. The real reactions being given by those interviewed give an authenticity to the proceedings that the film seems to strive for.

THESE REST OF THE REVIEW CONTAINS MAJOR SPOILERS
Bingham’s one relationship that almost convinces him to forego his life as a baggage-less person is with Alex, who as she says, should be imagined as Ryan Bingham “but with a vagina”. The life they have together meeting up whenever they can is too good to be true and is ultimately built on a superficial idea of status cards. When Bingham seems to reach a point of willingness to give up his job, effectively his life, and leaves the conference where he is speaking in Las Vegas to see her in her home in Chicago, he (somewhat predictably) only finds disappointment in learning she has a husband and family. The life Alex lives on the road is not the one she has at home. What’s more, the film fairly clearly suggests that Alex is a nymphomaniac. The way she has adventurous sex with Bingham is one thing, but you get the feeling that he is not the only one she has this relationship with. Additionally she mentions having joined the mile high club on a domestic regional flight during the day, and masturbates before she even texts Ryan to talk one night. These are signs of a woman who is not only adulterous, but obsessively so.

After the dissolution of his relationship with Alex everything in Bingham’s life takes on a different light. The ending, which is somewhat open ended, can be translated three-fold as I see it. One is the happy ending. Ryan has ended up exactly where he was when we met him, and after everything he has gone through he decides to leave that baggage behind (literally) as he lets go of his bag and looks up at the big board of flights to take Natalie’s advice to just fly anywhere you want once he has reached his goal of elite status as only the seventh person to ever accumulate 10 million frequent flier miles. Cut to the clouds, and he is off on his journey to anywhere.

The second ending is the mundane ending. Bingham has been reinstated at his job and everything is right where he wanted it to be before Natalie started messing things up for him. He goes back to following his own advice to shed everything that didn’t fit in his backpack. Alex is gone, Natalie is too. He recommends her for her new position in San Francisco because he is showing he is right about how you have to leave everything but the job behind. He has lost his second career as a motivational speaker but that was extraneous and had to be cut. He is the Ryan Bingham we met before, once again suppressing the bad things that have tried to sidetrack him throughout life and continuing to be an excellent fire-for-hire.

The third ending is the dark ending. His willingness to extend himself to Alex ended in failure. In the process he realized the status card lifestyle has lost its’ luster. When Bingham achieves his goal of ten million miles, the moment is utterly futile and as he states, he has gone through this so many times in his head but now he doesn’t know what to say. He is back in the job exactly where he was at the beginning of the entire ordeal, and the distance with his own family has finally come to a place where he understands that he will never be close with them (even if he wanted to be) because of his own coldness. He gets asked by his boss (Jason Bateman) if he remembers a woman who threatened to jump off a bridge during a firing. He says no, but of course we know he does. This puts a seed into his mind. He ends up at the airport, lets go of his bag, effectively his life, and looks up at the meaninglessness of the big board and its’ endless flights around the country. We see his face one last time realizing this, and then we cut to an extended shot of floating through the clouds in silence. Ryan Bingham has committed suicide.

END OF MAJOR SPOILERS


**** Four Stars - Definitely see this film

Up In the Air is now playing in theaters everywhere is has been nominated for six Golden Globe awards.

Precious: Based on the novel Push by Sapphire - "Precious Few Things To Love"

Screenplay by Geoffry Fletcher
Directed by Lee Daniels

Precious is heartbreaking. Not only because the subject matter it deals with is a girl who is abused mentally and physically throughout the picture, but because it misses the mark as a film as well. ‘Based on the novel Push by Sapphire’ is based on the novel ‘Push’ by Sapphire and tells the story of an obese 16 year old girl living in Harlem in the 1980’s who goes by the name “Precious”. Precious (newcomer Gabourey Sidibe) lives alone with her mother Mary (Mo’Nique), though she has a child with Down syndrome affectionately called “mongo” (short for mongoloid) that her Grandmother brings over whenever the social worker makes a stop by the dingy apartment. Precious is also now pregnant with her second child, both of which were the product of being raped by her faceless, never seen father. Oh, and her father gave her HIV-AIDS. In short, it’s the feel good movie of the year.

Dealing with such serious and heavy subject matter, the film has to find a balance so it doesn’t end up like a Paul Schrader film. This balance is provided by the opportunity Precious is given by being kicked out of her public school for being pregnant again (don’t worry, it gets better). Her former principal thinks she would benefit from a “leg up” program called Each One Teach One to work toward her GED, and after some hesitation and some stolen fried chicken, she decides to attend. There, the film becomes a cookie cutter inspirational teacher film as she eventually makes pals with the other students and under the tutelage of her teacher Ms. Rain (Paula Patton) learns to write about her life. Through this personal journal, she goes on a personal journey to redemption.

It is in voice over of what these diaries contain that we learn the most about who Precious is and what her innermost thoughts are. What strikes me as inconsistent is that while the scrawling we see in her book onscreen is simple, the narration expounds exponentially. It seems that the voice over is supposed to be the audience’s guide to the wonderful things she is writing, but we never get an indication that it is actually in her book. The opening credit sequence is done so that the audience sees how Precious would write it in her illiterate penmanship with the actual information spelled and written correctly in parenthesis. Perhaps we are supposed to be hearing cleaned up narration, like what she would be saying if she knew how? But then, the monologues are still so rough and dialectically correct for her character, so I don’t think that’s the case.

There are a number of continuity and time period errors in the film that I won’t get into nitpicking, but one has be mentioned because it plays a huge role in the film. When Precious steals fried chicken from a restaurant on her way to her first day of the new school, she grabs the bucket of chicken from the counter and makes a mad dash out of the restaurant leaving behind her journal notebook and pen. The following scene has Ms. Rain explaining the importance of the writing assignment at length, and the students begin to take out their books to begin writing. My first instinct was “Oh no! Precious left hers behind!” But right after, Precious magically takes out her assignment book and begins to write. No mention is made of the error. It really bothered me to my core and I couldn’t stop thinking about it. Especially because when I noticed the book being left behind, we know her name is on that book and someone at the restaurant or better yet, the police, could have tracked her pilfering ass down. This is yet another thing about that scene that is completely ignored.

Throughout the film, the screen goes black momentarily for seemingly no reason. This is independent low-budget filmmaking so maybe it was an editing choice to cover a lack of footage. Or maybe it was an artistic choice. Regardless, I found it distracting as there was no cohesive reason to do this. We already have a series of fantasy sequences that Precious indulges in when trying to escape her life into her mind’s eye, usually of herself as a famous movie star or glamorous model. These scenes work to solidify her character’s need for escape and a creative mind that doesn’t know how to unleash itself onto the outside world (or that such a thing is even possible) as well as address her own insecurities with self image. They’re used to good effect but at a certain point they stop telling us more about her and just become monotonous.

In a film where technical aspects are lacking, something must be a saving grace. For this film, it is the acting by its stars, Mo’Nique and Gabourey Sidibe. Gabourey walks through the film in a zombie-like haze most of the time, either from depression or not understanding what is going on around her, fitting Precious to a T. Mo’Nique is even better, the shining star of the whole film. Her portrayal of Mary is real, raw, and ultimately understandable. You hate her for being what she is, but you know and sympathize because it’s so true to life’s real villains. When she breaks down in the end trying to explain how she just wants to be loved, you can’t help but feel heartbreaking anger for this pathetic, weak individual. The film’s ending is somewhat abrupt; some issues, like the mother/daughter dynamic, are dealt with but others linger in the air left for us to only wonder where it will go. Still, while there was little else to be enthused about in the film, Mo’Nique delivers a powerhouse performance that is all too rare even in good films.


*** Three Stars – Take it or leave it

Precious: Based on the novel Push by Sapphire is in theaters now and the Golden Globe awards announced it today as one of their nominees for Best Picture - Drama.