Avatar

‘King of the World’ James Cameron rises back from the depths of the sea after his “Titanic” success twelve years ago to deliver one of the most epic films of all time with “Avatar.”

Let’s get the main two questions out of the way: Is it a good movie?  Heck yes.  Is it a game-changing film that will transform movies forever? Well, possibly.  But can any film really do that?  On a technical level, movies can always advance special effects and what can be accomplished as far as the limits of imagination and reality go.  And to its credit, Cameron’s imagination graces every expensive frame of this movie to an unbelievably believable effect.

I’ve heard much complaining about the simplicity and cliche of his storyline.  I’m at a loss to understanding the reasoning of such complaints.  ‘Avatar’ presents a classic Pocahontas narrative.  In 2154, the American government dispatches a high-tech military unit to ransack the planet of Pandora in an effort to obtain a valuable mineral deposit.  The problem?  An indigenous race of humanoid Na’vi warriors (standing over twice the size of a human) refuse to relocate and give up the forests of their planet for human greed.  The plan?  American scientists are utilized to understand the Na’vi and negotiate a compromise.  After one of the scientists is killed in action, his twin marine brother, Jake Sully (Sam Worthington, Terminator Salvation) arrives to replace him and operate a genetically-engineered and remote-controlled avatar of a Na’vi that will infiltrate their race.  The expected happens when Jake soon loses his militaristic ideals, becomes one with their race, and falls for his Na’vi counterpart, Neytiri (Zoe Saldana, Star Trek).

Call the plot cliche or predictable, but I found it to be the perfect setup for Cameron’s world.  Never once does the audience not know where the story is headed, but never once do they know what this incredible director will show us next.  The very world he creates rivals any other cinematic achievement in history to date.  Witnessing the incredible design of the creatures inhabiting Pandora generated serious awe for me, as they felt authentic and extremely realistic.  Even on the human side of things–all of the military equipment: the helicopters, weaponry, and human-operated tank-bots stand as incredible accomplishments in design.  Cameron has pronounced every detail of his endless visionary world.  And I haven’t even mention the 3D factor.

This is, above all things considered, the most profound and immersing use of 3D to date.  It really opens up Pandora and allows you to enter its universe.  I can’t stress enough the level of detail utilized in the film, and the 3D really eliminates all the barriers from receiving a truly monumental movie experience.  Whether or not the movie will play as well at home remains to be seen.  Even without the third-dimension factor, the visual effects still top anything Michael Bay threw at the screen this year.  The motion-capture used to create the Na’vi characters works tremendously well in capturing authentic expression and emotion.  You can actually see the faces of Sigourney Weaver, Sam Worthington, and Zoe Saldana under the layers of computer-animation.  How this was all accomplished is way beyond me, but Cameron fails to let us down after all the hype surrounding the technology he furthered to create his vision.

James Cameron may not be a storytelling genius, but the man knows what works, and he consistently tackles all of his projects with huge success and accomplishment.  ‘The Terminator,’ ‘Aliens’, ‘The Abyss,’ ‘Terminator 2: Judgment Day,’ ‘True Lies’ and ‘Titanic’ (all among my favorite films) pushed the limits of filmmaking and what could be done with their budgets.  Luckily, Cameron doesn’t puke throwaway spectacle all over the screen.  He delivers something special and memorable with characters you care about and themes that are universal.  “Avatar” continues his streak as a filmmaking pioneer pushing the boundaries of technology to show audiences the limitless potential of the imagination.  This is certainly one of the best films of 2009, and one of the great movie-going experiences of all time.  Get up out of your chair, head to the multiplex, purchase a big tub of popcorn, and witness this incredible film in all its 3D glory.

[Rating:4.5/5]

-MJV & the Movies

The Twilight Saga: New Moon

twilight_new_moon_poster_0509I sat next to my fiancee in packed a theater full of young teenage girls just oooing and ahhhing over the opening title sequence of the highly-anticipated sequel to last year’s major blockbuster romance “Twilight.”  Soon enough, however, the excitement seemed to subside as “New Moon” descended into a monotonous bore of a film where so little happens for 130 straight minutes.  Even my fiancee and her best friend (huge fans of the books) felt shorthanded by the stupidity onscreen.

To the series’ credit, I enjoyed the first “Twilight” on its own terms.  The film actually had a serviceable romance and two solid lead actors out of Kirsten Stewart and Robert Pattinson as two young lovers with their own mortality (or lack thereof) doing battle.  The obligatory physical threat of competing vampires showed up far too late in the game, but the chemistry of the two stars and interest of the story carried the film.  Outside of choppy hit-or-miss visual effects sequences, I can see the appeal.  Director Catherine Hardwicke deserves far more credit than she earned as the movie took off into phenomenon-status, and the studio began to search for a more spectacle-driven director.

Summit Entertainment found Chris Weitz, fresh off his stateside box-office behemoth of a flop–“The Golden Compass.”  That film turned out to be a worldwide success coming close to $400 million and earning an Oscar win for its special effects.  Let’s forget it was an awful movie.  “New Moon” is about as much of a disaster, if not more.

The story picks up right after the last film.  The Cullen vampire family throws Bella (Kirsten Stewart) a birthday party, and through a course of events, the young lady cuts her finger which sets off Edward’s (Pattinson) blood-thirsty brother.  Edward enters into a brief tussle to protect Bella, and winds up realizing that she, as a human in his world, will find nothing but danger.  He decides to leave her, giving her a chance at a normal life, abandoning her in a forest which sends her into a state of depression.  Months go by before Bella develops a friendship with her childhood pal Jacob (Taylor Lautner).  He has secrets of his own, and wouldn’t you know it (for the only two readers who don’t know), he turns out to be a werewolf.  Now who is Bella to choose?  And does anyone really care when the movie moves at a turtle’s pace, throwing up incalculable volumes of awful dialogue, and implausible teeny soap opera nonsense?

In theory I could be chastised for falling into the first film’s trap of teeny-bopper romance fodder and then turning around to complain about this chapter, but something struck me with the two lead actors in the last outing, and I liked the film solely for their work which rose above anything I would’ve expected for such fluff.  I have to conclude that Catherine Hardwicke knew how to put the focus on the two actors, and inject some passion into the film’s proceedings.  That so-called ‘passion’ is completely absent here.  ‘New Moon’ is a 130-minute bore of massive proportions. So little happens, and the dialogue and much of the plot developments are excruciatingly painful.  Hardwicke made the sap-crap watchable.  Chris Weitz simply hits the gag-reflex.  Perhaps, the void comes from the fact that this story isn’t much about Pattinson and Stewart’s relationship.  Once he leaves early on in the film, Stewart is left to wallow and moap, while developing a new connection with Taylor Lautner’s character.  Lauter is a disappointment.  Whether his lacking talent as an actor has more to do with it than his terrible dialogue remains to be seen in further chapters.  But much of the film focuses on an awkward relationship between the Bella and Jacob characters that never fully works because she obviously doesn’t want to be with him.  She longs for Edward, and sets herself up for death-defying situations to catch a glimmer of his watchful apparition that appears when she finds her way into danger.  Needless to say, the attempt at establishing the Bella/Jacob relationship doesn’t work and feels like a waste of time for the audience when the real chemistry exists only between Pattinson and Stewart.

Eventually, Pattinson does return in the film’s ‘climax,’ a howler of sequence as he attempts to end his life in front of the head governing vampires over odd plot developments.  Too little, too late.  The sequel suffers without the Pattinson/Stewart romance.  No amount of spectacle that Weitz tries to amplify this time around can save the movie’s lack of a pulse.  With the lead characters seperated, Weitz could have possibly saved the project by delving further into vampire/werewolf mythology, and tying in some more mature storytelling and exploration of the major assortment of characters he’s been given (something Hardwicke missed as well in “Twilight”)–but why do something interesting when you can make a bare-bones cadaver of a movie?

“New Moon” undoubtedly blew up at the box-office, grossing $140 million in its first three days, and $72 million of that total on its first day alone.  Sitting currently at $270 million, it has been dropping pretty hard since its release, but it’ll still wind up in the $300 million range, making it a walloping success for the studio backing it (and far bigger than its predecessor last year with $192 million total).  Too bad it’s a stale installment.  Hopefully Director David Slade of the bloodbath vampire thriller “30 Days of Night” can develop a much more mature and exciting film out of “Eclipse” due in theaters June 30th of next year.

[Rating:1.5/5]

The Taking of Pelham 123

the-taking-of-pelham-1-2-3Armed men hijack a New York City subway train, holding the passengers hostage in return for a ransom, and turning an ordinary day’s work for dispatcher Walter Garber (Denzel Washington) into a face-off with the mastermind (John Travolta) behind the crime (IMDB).

Tony Scott’s attempt at remaking 1974’s “The Taking of Pelham One Two Three” surprisingly fails, when in reality with all this talent involved, it should be sizzling. Not that there’s much you can do to improve the other classic film, but giving it a modern spin with scenery chewing actors like Denzel Washington and John Travolta should be one of the most exciting films of the year. Not to be. Scott’s infamous MTV editing that overwhelmed “Man on Fire” and “Domino” is on display here once again, the dialogue is trashy, and the director also seems to have little faith in the suspense of the story. Truthfully there isn’t much, unlike the original, and so Scott splices some ridiculous crash sequences (which really feel quite stupid) in between Travolta’s rantings.

That brings up Travolta, a talented actor and sometimes entertaining villain (Face/Off, Broken Arrow) and other times not so much (Swordfish). But what seems a perfect vehicle for him, turns out to be one of his most ham-fisted performances in quite some time. His constantly whiny bad guy, Ryder, seems to lack any shred of intelligence, and his dialogue in this thing is often unbelievably campy. While Denzel Washington has a settled in, humbled performance that doesn’t require much, Travolta is rather hilarious and doesn’t play well in generating any tense moments.

This new “Pelham” is not the wild ride and sparring match-up it should have been. I typically like Tony Scott’s work (True Romance, Crimson Tide, Enemy of the State, Spy Game) and even much of his maligned work (Man on Fire, Domino, Deja Vu). But “Pelham 123” is a ludicrous bore that has none of the suspense of the original, and wants to be a popcorn actioner when it should be an intense thriller. A major disappointment. I encourage anyone interested in this film to check out the original film first.

[Rating:2.5/5]

-MJV & the Movies

Paranormal Activity

paranormal-activity-poster“Paranormal Activity,” an $11,000 horror-wonder, has used its marketing and word-of-mouth among the college crowd to succeed as a $100 million hit for Paramount Pictures.  While a post-Halloween review of the film may be a little late in the game, the film is still having an impressive impact at the box office and will likely add another $10-15 million to its unbelievable haul.  Only unbelievable in comparison to its budget, the film really is 2009’s “Blair Witch Project,” another handheld documentary-esque horror film that kickstarted this whole shaky-cam push for the “it’s-really-happening” approach–a film that also managed to gross over $100 million.

I do appreciate a well-constructed horror film.  Too often ‘horror’ as a genre fails to reach beyond the cliche-riddled approach of the slasher flick, and now the ‘torture porn’ arena that has exploded in cinemas with movies like the “Saw” canon and “Hostel.”  While it may appear that the shelf life of splatter cinema is dying out (look at Saw VI’s box office), “Paranormal Activity” retrospectively plays on some of the horror genre’s greatest strengths–spirits, ghosts, demonic possession, haunted houses, and all those unearthly entities that cannot be beaten.

The story here actually centers around a seemingly “typical” American couple, Katie and Micah, terrorized by an unseen force in their house.  Warnings from a local ghost-whisperer warn the pair that the spirit is no ghost, but an angry demonic presence that he cannot deal with.  The couple is strapped for options, and so Micah sets up a home video camera to capture the events occuring throughout the day and night, and of course, creepy images abound and the terror increases over time.

Audiences have overall been praising this one, overhyping to unbelievable levels–or at least that’s what I read all over the internet.  Anyone I’ve actually talked to about the film in person seems have only been mildly amused by the film’s proceedings.  I mostly agree.  While “Paranormal Activity” deserves props for its atmosphere and its accomplishments with such a small budget, the film still takes too much time between the events taking place.  This is a film that really stretches out the patience of audiences not initally gripped by its very proposal of a potential demonic spirit.  Doors slam, crash noises occur, lights flick on and off, and grunting noises come through a digital audio feed.  By that time the film has reached beyond its halfway point, and when creepier things do happen, the pacing picks up some.  But I couldn’t help but feel underwhelmed by the ordeal.  The film also preys on the character’s isolation quite a bit.  Of course it helps to maintain the sense of dread and confinement, but I constantly questioned why Katie and Micah simply don’t leave the house.  Yes, their ghostbuster guy tells them that it won’t matter if they leave (the demon will follow them), I find it hard to believe they would put up with some the film’s later events without giving it a shot.  Also, these characters seem normal other than the fact that they’re home all the time.  Do they not have normal everyday jobs?  Are they not around several other people?  I don’t know, but if my house was haunted– first, I’d be out of there, and second, the world would know about it.  These two choose to stay in this house of horror, and somehow manage to sleep at night.

Unfortunately, the film was a bit of a letdown–an admirable step in the right direction for the genre, but one that misfired for me.  A lot of the hype probably had something to do with it, and the fact that the home-video style has worn out its welcome for me.  The ads on TV mostly showcase audience reaction to the film rather than actual footage of the movie, and while that’s an awesome approach in marketing, I sat in a packed audience that never screamed at the screen.

[Rating:2.5/5]

-MJV & the Movies

Land of the Lost

landoflostOne of the worst moviegoing experiences I’ve endured this year has to be Brad Silberling’s 2009 bomb “Land of the Lost.”  What a waste of talent, resources, time and budget (at $100 million).  Now, I haven’t seen the classic TV-show.  Subsequently, I have no basis for the film’s comparison, but I can’t imagine I would have been thrilled by the TV series after seeing the film, even if it is only vaguely reminiscent.

Will Ferrell continues his losing streak after “Semi-Pro,” “Step Brothers,” and now this botched movie.  He plays Rick Marshall, a scientist with a theory involving multiple dimensions in the universe that meet in a distant space-time continuum.  He explains that rather than time-travel moving forward and backwards, it moves side to side, creating a dimension where past, present and future collide at once.

The movie kicks off with a stranded astronaut being hunted by a T-Rex in this other dimension, which the movie never follows up on.  After the title credit, Ferrell’s character Rick gets a brain slap and a boot of embarrassment from NBC Today’s Matt Lauer.  Fast forward three years and Ferrell finishes his boombox time-warp machine that transplants him and two others in another dimension with dinosaurs, primate ancestors, and several other creatures.  Rick shouts, “Matt Lauer can suck it.” Of course, Rick and friends must somehow prevent the disturbances of this other-world from resulting in planet Earth’s demise, and also find an exit from the alternate world to their own.

Humor is not the film’s strong suit, and Ferrell is constantly the brunt of sight gags that have him covering himself in dinosaur urine, consistently failing to outsmart a T-Rex, and idiotic banter with the primate.  The special effects in the movie also wreak.  The creatures and dinosaurs look terrible, and much of the action sequences fall apart.  “Land of the Lost” would have been easier to forgive as a kid’s film, but with the profanity, sexual humor, drug-related scenes, and some scary creatures–it doesn’t exactly cater to youngsters.  Regardless, the movie is really an exercise in wasted time and money.  It’s one of the year’s worst films.

[Rating:0.5/5]


Inglourious Basterds

I B Teaser 1-Sht.Few cinematic visionaries have an eye and an ear quite like Quentin Tarantino.  The man is a brand of his own.  When you sit down for one of his movies, you know that the experience of it will be quite different from any other piece of filmmaking not of his craft.  Tarantino is a storyteller through and through, possibly a little self-indulgent in his work and overly animated in his regard for gratuitous violence, but he has a talent for originality from concept to execution.  “Inglourious Basterds” surpasses all of his recent works.

I won’t pretend to know anything about the previous incarnation of “Inglorious Bastards,” but I will say I doubt there can be much comparison based on Tarantino’s signature style and knack for meaty ongoing dialogue.  Much of “Basterds” is just that: a lot of style and talky-talky.  But, like all Tarantino works, the dialogue is so interesting, well-thought-out, and well-delivered that it really absorbs the audience.  Many scenes in the film are built around conversation and the tension often skyrockets.  The actual plot (or plots) of the film seem to exist as an afterthought when the written page onscreen has us so wrapped up.

hanslanda

Christoph Waltz as Col. Landa

I will admit I underestimated the storyline for this film.  I assumed (based on the marketing) that Brad Pitt’s character, Lt. Aldo Raine, and his group of soldiers would spend 2 1/2 hours trekking through WWII Germany hunting, mutilating, torturing, and beating Nazis to bloody pulps.   Well there is some of that, yes, and some of it is very gratuitous and very violent.  Ultimately, that’s not the meat of the story.  Like all Tarantino movies, he constructs these sub-plots that intersect into one final meeting for the characters.  And that is the case here as well.  The movie opens with with a group of Nazi soldiers searching for Jews in hiding.  The Nazi leader, Col. Hans Landa (Christoph Waltz), drills a dairy farmer for suspected harboring of a missing Jewish family, which the farmer has secretly been doing.  Upon the family’s discovery, Col. Landa orders them to be executed.  One of the younger girls of the family manages to escape and carries the horror of that day with her, until four years later she has an opportunity to avenge her family, which plays into the other developments of the story.  This particular scene reaches an unbelievable amount of tension and is, truthfully, beyond spectacular.  Heartbreaking, yes, but unbelievably effective.  Besides Tarantino’s expert penmanship, due credit belongs to Christoph Waltz’s slithering, brilliant performance–one that will guarantee him an Oscar nomination come year’s end.  Every time he’s onscreen, there is an unsettling sensation running through your veins, and he has many scenes to steal the show.

inglorious picThe Basterds’ chapter comes in after that setup.  As promised by all the commercials and trailers, Brad Pitt’s (who is hugely funny here) slurring southern Leuitenant calls upon him eight soldiers–experts in Nazi killin’.  Among the most recognizable faces are B.J. Novak from ‘The Office’, and Eli Roth (director of Cabin Fever and Hostel).  Roth is the only ‘actor’ in the film that doesn’t quite fit the bill.  It feels very much like an extended cameo by a filmmaker, and it never quite works for the overall look and feel of the movie.  It’s not that he hinders the movie per se, but his presence and performance fail to mesh with everything else.  And that’s hard to do in a film where Tarantino lets anything fly as he totally rewrites history in scene after scene, amounting to sheer brilliance for the most part.

“Inglourious Basterds” is not just violent, or bloody, but it’s also quite humorous, as Tarantino turns Hitler into a cry-baby cartoon, and then saddles every character with outrageous, gut-busting dialogue.  Listen to Brad Pitt pronounce “Bonjour-no” trying to masquerade through a Nazi gathering as an Italian.  Many viewers will walk away offended by the treatment of WWII and the Holocaust as presented here, but this movie is all about fantasy.  This is an alternate-reality revenge-flick put upon the Nazi regime.  Think a successful version of “Valkyrie” meets “Pulp Fiction” meets “Man on Fire.”  The tone of “Basterds” almost works perfectly, but Tarantino does let his scenes run on for some extended length, which make for a very long movie.   Almost every frame actually does work, but as usual for its writer-director, this movie takes its sweet old time.

I can’t complain too much.  This is the work of a filmmaking pioneer, like it or not.  Quentin Tarantino’s short resume has revolutionized cinema to some extent.  “Inglourious Basterds” is a welcome return to greatness we haven’t seen since 1994’s Pulp Fiction, and one of the few great films we’ve been granted this summer.  As a whole, this movie is a bit hit-and-miss, but mostly an awesome, violent, bloody, hilarious, history-rewriting event that should not be missed.

[Rating:4/5]

-MJV & the Movies

Alien

alien_posterFew horror vehicles remain as important and seminal as Ridley Scott’s groundbreaking incarnation of the first ‘Alien’ picture.  The film came together during a time when science-fiction in film had just been regaining some traction with the enormous success of ‘Star Wars’; a time where the ‘slasher’ picture unknowingly birthed its invincible genre with John Carpenter’s ‘Halloween.’

Based on a B-movie screenplay by Dan O’Bannon and Ronald Shusett during 20th Century Fox’s race to discover the next big space opera, ‘Alien’ received the greenlight despite its glaring departure from the world and joyous ambiance of that George Lucas phenomenon. The film opens similarly to ‘Star Wars’ during an unspecified future with a giant spaceship towering its way across the screen.  The ship withholds twenty-million tons of mineral ore being brought back to earth when the crew’s voyage becomes interrupted by the interception of a signal from an unknown planet. The crew made up of seven engineers, led by Dallas (Tom Skerritt), is ordered by their governing company to investigate.  Whether the signal is an SOS call or a warning remains unclear until they reach this planet and find a stranded alien spacecraft.  Three members of the team, including Dallas, and two others (Kane, Parker) enter the craft to the discovery of a giant fossilized space pilot and a plethora of voluminous eggs.  Ultimately, the curiosity of the crew members turns to terror as ‘Alien’ unleashes a deadly monster, hidden in the shadows and vents of the humans’ spaceship.

Having no prior knowledge of the film or series that it spawned works significantly to understanding the unpredictability of the advancing story, its impact upon its release in 1979, and its current status as a pioneer of the horror genre.  ‘Alien’ works as a rare breed, a film that takes all the time it needs to reveal its heading and its monster.  The pacing and editing are perfectly matched at building inescapable dread. The confinement of the mining ship traps the audience in its darkness.  The quiet, hovering score of Jerry Goldsmith strays from forcing the audience into the mood and tension of a scene, and rather allows the unknown and unseen to become far more effective at tantalizing the nerves.  The film also strays from the conventional in making its cast an ensemble without a dominating star or presence. The audience knows these people will be picked off in some order,  and there are survivors, but the writers intentionally left out first names in the script to allow for male or female characters.  All of them are equally endangered.

The alien creature itself remains an interesting and ambiguous design.  The eggs harvested on the alien craft birth, surprisingly, not the monster itself–but a parasite that attaches itself to the face of a living host and implants an embryo through the throat and into the chest of its victim.  Through the victim births the monster.  What an original and horrific concept.  Director Ridley Scott toys with the alien’s sexual nature: its underlying act of ultimately raping its prey to spawn its existence, and the physical design of the creature itself in shape and form.  The creature is constantly changing as well.  The parasite, following its host’s impregnation, leaves the victim and dies shortly after.  The actual monster itself begins life in a small phallic shape, but increases in mass very quickly.  The audience doesn’t see the process of this transformation, but the alien, while never fully explained, seems to have a short life-span.  Each time it takes the screen, it is bigger than its last appearance.  That notion adds more terror.  While the audience has witnessed the creature, their uncertainty continues to linger regarding what they might witness around the next corner.

alien2Even if the right elements are in place for a technically accomplished horror film, a usual downfall rests on its casting.  Not the case here.  Sigourney Weaver plays Ripley, an intelligent, by-the-book  young pilot.  She thinks before she acts, plays by the rules, and rarely investigates uncertainties. Tom Skerritt plays the captain of the ship as an experienced officer that knows the ropes and simply wants to get the job done to move on and return home.  He cares for his crew and often dismisses standard operating procedure in conjunction with instinct.  The cast rounds out with Veronica Cartwright, Yaphet Kotto, John Hurt and Harry Dean Stanton as the other officers, along with Ian Holm as Ash, a mysterious science officer somewhat reminding of Star Trek’s Spock character.  This cast actually proves to be very effective, carrying both the inner-terror and inquiry required to make the audience care and believe in this nightmare.

Of course ‘Alien’ is probably best remembered among all these accolades for one rattling scene that has become legendary for its time.  And without saying more for the few left uninitiated, it is still mostly a remarkable scene for the slim exception that the puppetry has not exactly held its weight in longevity for today’s audiences.  The performances and surprise of the scene have made it stand the test of time.

I will add that the version I recently viewed was the 2003 re-release cut titled “Director’s Cut” with a disclaimer by Ridley Scott that this is simply an alternate cut for the wishes of his fans, and not his preferred version.  His newly edited version slightly trims a handful of scenes and adds in a few others–with only one remaining all that significant and possibly controversial.  I enjoyed this cut immensely for this particular cut sequence toward the film’s climax, a scene that would further continuity with James Cameron’s follow-up ‘Aliens.’

‘Alien’ has spawned three varying sequels and two dopey spin-offs.  Ignoring the other works and taking Ridley Scott’s film on its own merits, it is a true cinematic classic that takes B-movie monster material and makes an involving and very realistically human film out of the science-fiction.  The film has seen its share of imitators, but none have matched the intelligence and elegance of this exceptional startler.

[Rating:4.5/5]

-MJV & the Movies

District 9

district9_poster-689x1024I love a movie that doesn’t just serve up passable or forgettable entertainment, but one that gets me giddy about movies–a sort-of recharging of the batteries after suffering through some big disappointments this summer: Transformers 2, Wolverine, Terminator Salvation, The Taking of Pelham 123, G.I. Joe.  The only saving grace for big budget action this summer seemed to be ‘Star Trek,’ a movie I really enjoyed that revived a lacking franchise, and also the latest ‘Harry Potter’ installment which might not exactly qualify as big budget ‘action’. Neill Blomkamp’s ‘District 9’ doesn’t just revive a franchise, or a genre, but it revives a seasonal drought.  I admit to falling under its spell early on with some intriguing high-concept trailers, but for the most part the movie remained under the radar, with most of its marketing stemming from that of the viral sort.  Nothing prepared me for how suspenseful and nail-biting this Peter Jackson produced feature would ultimately be.

I’ll try to remain vague with the plot. The story sets up the concept that an alien spacecraft came to earth twenty years ago on accident, having run out of fuel. The aliens inside were discovered starving, and thus, a camp was set up for them to live in known as District 9, located in Johannesburg, South Africa, mostly separating them from humans. The population of the alien species, known as prawns, grows over two decades to roughly 1.5 million, which brings us to present day where a government outfit attempts to relocate them to a type of concentration camp that will further distance them from humans.  More developments ensue, but I’ll stop there.

‘District 9’ is a flat-out masterpiece in every regard, surpassing even high expectations amongst the isolated hype surrounding it.  The movie is socially conscience with something to say, generating strong and interesting conflict in its approach to the age-old alien invasion film.  The movie also looks incredible, and this is done with a budget of only $30 million, a staggering decrease from Transformers’  and ‘Terminator Salvation’s’ $200 million.  The intensity of the film is uncompromising, and it has some incredible, violent action.  Neill Blomkamp is already quite a talent, and an interesting name to watch for.  His observation of the alien creatures and human reactions to them call upon great controversy that helps give the film an added weight that most films of this subject matter would easily dodge.  The special effects, I can’t stress enough, are just remarkable at their cost.  The aliens looks great, the action looks great.  All the right elements combine to make the best, most ambitious and engrossing movie of the summer.  I can’t recommend it enough.

[Rating:5/5]