The Over-rated movies of our times
I hate having to write a bad review. Nobody likes to watch a tedious film that is an embarrassment to its makers and then point out why it is so. You go into a film wanting to enjoy it. That's why I normally just do a short summary of my evaluations, most of the time. But given the state of the awards-season blitz, and since I'm seeing most of these films, someone has to address the sorry state of the film industry, in terms of the films that receive the most praise. I know all the good filmmakers are the ones that are not selling tons of box-office stubs, or receiving Oscars (Fellini, Lynch, Kubrick - the list goes on), but as time goes on, it seems that this problem is just getting worse and worse. After the Crash debacle in 2005, there seemed to be a ray of hope with the Departed, and then No Country for Old Men winning the top honour, but then there was the feel-good-I'm-not-racist-because-I-like-this-movie-affair of Slumdog Millionaire, which is a good movie, but just good, not best.
Today I'd like to address the two most over-rated films of the year, both financially and critically. These are also the two films with the best shots at winning best picture: Up in the Air by Jason Reitman, and Avatar by King James Cameron. Both these films, like Slumdog, are good and all, but they do not deserve the title of Best Picture that so many are bestowing upon them.
Up in the Air's problems begin with its being executed with such deliberation it almost seems contrived. Mark: almost. I'm prompted to finally write about this one due to my annoyance at Reitman taking Screenplay at the Globes the other night. Total robbery from Quentin. It has a good screenplay, and that is probably the least of the problems, but it is no Diablo Cody masterwork. The failure of the film is the directing, which is surprising. Instead of using his normal punch-punch pacing like he did in Thank You for Smoking, here Reitman knows that he's being profound, and it's not flattering when that shows. There were so many hanging maudlin montages I was compelled to go to the washroom, something I never do. I don't remember those being in the classic comedies of the thirties and forties that everyone is comparing it to.
I also have to note that while the performances are good, they are also just good. So much hype for nothing major is annoying to me. It is just reinforcement of how far people have lowered their standards. This film is "good," and nowadays, that happens so rarely that everyone gets their panties in a knot over this sort of thing. Up in the Air doesn't accomplish anything new or exciting, it is just a solid good film. Nothing more, nothing less. Still, it was better than Slumdog Millionaire (my review here), which I guess says something? READ: IT IS NO HURT LOCKER (review coming soon).
As for Avatar, I cannot spend too much time besides mentioning that it can be enjoyed to the same extent on mute. Lines like "I see you," now Cameron's acceptance speech catchphrase in Na'vi, is just insulting to an audience. This plot has been rehashed so many times the people better be bloody blue if you're going to do it again. Also, I would classify this as an animated film, I'm sorry. This is all just modern-day rotoscoping and yes it looks great, but the Imaginarium of Dr. Parnassus looked better. Even if its plot is just barely on par, if we're going by visual splendor alone, I'd say Gilliam's is the better film. You cannot create cinema based solely on shock and awe tactics. It may amuse the ticket-buyers, but so does Britney Spears.
I'm so offended and disillusioned sometimes it hurts, but then something like this happens and I'm okay:Awards-shows are meant to maintain order in the universe, and bolster the voices of the critics. They set the standards for years to come. Now tell me honestly, can you hold up Avatar against One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest, Midnight Cowboy, or Gone With the Wind?




























